Skip to main content
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, March 12, 1997

.1534

[English]

The Chair (Ms Mary Clancy (Halifax, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, I call the meeting to order.

The first item on the agenda is the order of reference dated February 3, 1997, that Bill C-300, the Canadian Volunteer Service Medal for United Nations Peacekeeping Act, be referred to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.

Consideration of clause 1 is postponed pursuant to Standing Order 75(1). I therefore call clause 2 and ask Mr. Frazer if he would like to make some opening remarks.

.1535

On clause 2 - Definitions

Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich - Gulf Islands, Ref.): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm not sure I understood the reason for clause 1 not being done today.

The Chair: It's just the title. The short title is always deferred.

Mr. Jack Frazer: I see. Now I understand.

The Chair: It's just one of those things.

Mr. Jack Frazer: First I would like to go on record, Madam Chair, as saying that I very much appreciated the cooperation we've had from the various people on the committee in discussing various aspects and the input that was given during the debate. I don't know whether the clerk is going to distribute my proposed amendments, but much of it is incorporated in those amendments.

This afternoon I met with the parliamentary secretary and the past chair of the committee. I was a little concerned for a while; I was in some pretty heavy company. We discussed it, and I think so far we seem to be going in the same direction, with minor variations that will come out as we go through the clauses.

I would also like to say I have just returned from Burma, where we laid to rest the six airmen who were killed there in 1945. With us were 25 veterans of the squadron they flew with. Those people have been away from the theatre for 50 years or more. They were still talking about medals: who got a DFC and who didn't, who should have, and the rest of it.

I just wanted to make that point. This medal may seem like very small potatoes to a lot of people, but to the veterans concerned it is a very dynamic thing, a recognition of things they have done in the service of their country. For that reason I think we should do our utmost to provide that recognition, where it's warranted.

The Chair: I certainly agree with you, Mr. Frazer, except on one thing. I don't think a medal is ever small potatoes. I don't think you do either. I think you know this is a very important bill.

Mr. Jack Frazer: There are people around who consider that this is something that is not really important. Unhappily that is a fact. I don't suggest for a moment - -

The Chair: I don't think any of them are on this committee.

Mr. Jack Frazer: I don't think they are, no, and I certainly didn't intend that.

The Chair: No, I know you didn't. Thank you.

For the second day in a row it is our pleasure to welcome General Dallaire, chief of staff, ADM (Personnel), and I believe Major Brown and Major Gallagher. Major Brown is from the Directorate of History and Heritage, Medals and Honours. Major Gallagher is a special assistant from the Judge Advocate General. I know what that is.

General Dallaire, would you or your colleagues like to make a statement at this point?

Major-General Roméo Dallaire (Chief of Staff, Assistant Deputy Minister (Personnel), Department of National Defence): Madam Chair, thank you very much for having us here as witnesses. It's becoming a habit, but you notice that I also bring my lawyer every time, so maybe there's something to that too.

May I state, on behalf of the Canadian Armed Forces, specifically in the Department of National Defence, that we warmly welcome the initiative of this bill. We feel it will in fact fill a gap in recognition of a number of service personnel who are serving overseas, for which they are not being recognized in a tangible way. We in uniform do enjoy that opportunity of expressing to our colleagues and also to the nation that we proudly have served overseas. Some of my detractors will say it's cheaper than giving a pay increase, but I won't get into that either.

[Translation]

We were able to analyze this bill in a very positive atmosphere. We exchanged views and acknowledged the work of Mr. Frazer and other parliamentarians. I believe we are all prepared to give our full agreement to all of these initiatives. Our meeting this afternoon should therefore proceed in a very positive manner.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[English]

Shall clause 2 carry?

.1540

Mr. Jack Frazer: Madam Chair, I have an amendment to clause 2.

The Chair: Would you like to speak to the amendment?

Mr. Jack Frazer: Yes.

I move that Bill C-300 in clause 2 be amended by replacing lines 7 to 13 on page 1 with the following:

In other words, Madam Chair, that would delete the definitions for ``medal'' and ``clasp'' from this clause.

Madam Chair?

The Chair: We just want to make sure we have all the right pieces of paper in the right order, Mr. Frazer, which may or may not be possible.

The effect of this amendment, then, in clause 2 of the bill, is to delete ``medal'' and ``clasp'' and the definitions thereof. All that would be left is ``In this Act, ``Minister'' means Minister of National Defence.''

Mr. Jack Frazer: Basically, this goes to clause 3, which -

The Chair: I understand.

Mr. Richardson, do you have anything to say?

Mr. John Richardson (Perth - Wellington - Waterloo, Lib.): I have no problem with that.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. John Richardson: I made the motion that -

The Chair: Wait, John.

Jack, I'm just checking if deleting the definition of ``medal'' would create any problems.

Mr. Jack Frazer: The only trouble is that ``medal'' refers to a description of the medal later on, which we don't want to do, because we want to leave it -

The Chair: All right. Okay.

Amendment agreed to

Clause 2 as amended agreed to

On clause 3 - Design of medal

Mr. Jack Frazer: I move that clause 3 be struck in its entirety.

The Chair: Go ahead, John.

Mr. John Richardson: I move that clause 3 of Bill C-300 be amended by replacing lines 14 to 28 on page 1 and lines 1 to 11 on page 2 with the following:

The Chair: Excuse me. I think somewhere in my Robert's Rules of Order brain, what we just did here we shouldn't have done. I think we should deal with Jack's amendment and then deal with George's amendment. Okay?

Do you have any comment, Mr. Frazer?

.1545

Mr. Jack Frazer: No, except that what we really wanted to do was to get away from describing and defining the medal and the ribbons and the rest of it, to allow that to be done by the appropriate authority.

The Chair: Yes, and as I understand this, that's what Mr. Proud's amendment does. So if you were to withdraw your amendment we could just deal with Mr. Proud's.

Mr. Jack Frazer: It's withdrawn.

Amendment agreed to

Clause 3 as amended agreed to

Mr. Jack Frazer: Is there an addition to it at subclause 3(1)? Again, that is proposed in my amendment to this.

The Chair: Is that this one?

Mr. John Richardson: Madam Chair, I understand the rationale Mr. Frazer is using for the clasp, but there is a concern that they wanted to keep the volunteer medal free of clasps and allow the medals that were in recognition of theatre operations, where they earned them as a volunteer, to be the description of the career of that person, based on the volunteer service medal.

Now I allow Mr. Frazer to bring forward his rationale.

Mr. Jack Frazer: I think you will all have received a letter from the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association. In it, in the fourth paragraph, they point out that Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar said in 1988, when announcing the award:

The Government of Canada has built a peacekeeping monument here in Ottawa, but there is no way for any individual, regardless of what medals he is wearing, to indicate he or she was a valid recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize when it was given to the then peacekeepers. That is what the people in the Peacekeeping Veterans Association are keen to have: recognition that they were part of the peacekeepers who won that recognition for Canada. It could be said that others since that time have done basically the same thing, but the truth is, of course, that the Nobel Peace Prize has not been awarded since 1988, so the people before that time do qualify, the ones post that time do not qualify.

Mr. John Richardson: To give some credence to the argument, I just ask Mr. Frazer whether he knows of any country that has taken this action.

Mr. Jack Frazer: No, I don't. This would be a precedent, I guess.

Mr. John Richardson: The advice we received on this.... But the gut feeling here is that the medal should be a stand-alone medal and each of the theatre medals, the operational medals, should be the descriptor of that volunteer service. I think on the basis of that we would stand in favour of keeping it that way. But certainly I would allow Mr. Frazer to put more arguments.

Mr. Jack Frazer: I guess I would ask the question, just how, then, would you recognize the people who were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize? The medals don't do it.

Mr. John Richardson: I know what you're saying. When I read and thought of that clause from de Cuellar where he said they should share it.... That's the heart of it. How do we share it? Should we send each one a letter or a symbol, a definite, up-front, hard symbol in the form of a clasp? That is the question before the committee. The advice we're receiving from the researchers is that we should not do it that way.

.1550

Mr. Jack Frazer: Madam Chair, would it be possible to get an opinion from our military input to see whether they have any feelings on this one?

MGen Dallaire: We're not comfortable with the bar because of the nature of the medal you've proposed. To single out that magnificent recognition by the world body to all peacekeepers is a worthy one. However, we've had people in Indo-China who did some pretty significant...in fact, we had some killed over there. We've had people in other operational areas who didn't fall under UN peacekeeping. The nature of your medal reflects that their actions should be recognized with the same sort of sense of purpose and commitment. Creating that bar would make a difference that would in fact, I would state, if I may, be more divisive in finger-pointing than in bringing forward the true nature of what you're trying to do with the medal. So we would not feel at ease with that specific commemoration.

Is there another instrument for doing it? We have already indicated the monument. We have also indicated that the chancellery would be looking at the model. Maybe there is something through that, which could be indicating on the front or back of that.

Mr. Jack Frazer: General, I don't want to argue with you, but I point out the CD. There are clasps to the CD, and it's the same medal. That isn't divisive; that just recognizes service that is longer than the people.... So this basically would do the same thing.

The amendments I have later on will deal with the problem you brought out, that not just UN missions deserve the medal. We're going to address that and hopefully approve it so that ICCS and the rest of the people who served outside the UN will be recognized properly.

Basically, the monument on Sussex Drive is not transportable. We can't take it to Victoria or to Halifax; therefore, the people who have won that honour have no way of saying to people who look at their ribbons that they were in fact one of the people who were recipients of it and that they were honoured by the Nobel institution and by the Secretary-General of the UN.

MGen Dallaire: Again, sir, we didn't want to get into the design of the medal and what you want to put on it, a replica or whatever. Your argument is presented. Yes, we have clasps, and I'm wearing them. However, it's because of continued service that is going on, and we're recognizing a different phase, as the Order of Military Merit is a different rank level.

Mr. Jack Frazer: That's what the clasp would do.

MGen Dallaire: The clasp in fact would reflect something very specifically different in these people; that is to say, because they were in this timeframe under that envelope, they would get that.

In fact, when you look at the nature of why you're giving it, may I go as far as to say one nearly offends the other. People would say it's not an advantage. It was the world body turning to the world and saying that. I think it would possibly be a little pretentious to take a world body recognition and put it on our national instruments, such as a national medal.

As you said yourself, and my father and my father-in-law did the same thing - they point at each other's medals 50 years after, and so on. I think you would have initiated a lot of not necessarily positive interaction by introducing this bar.

The Chair: Thank you, General Dallaire.

Mr. Proud, you wanted to -

Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Yes, I want to follow up on what's been said here by Mr. Richardson and General Dallaire.

I think, Jack, honestly, we've come to the point today where we're going to do this. We're going to do this with the medal, and you and I both know we've been a long time looking at something like this.

I believe, too, as to the Nobel Peace Prize, that there may be another way they will be recognized, and that will come in due time. The peacekeeping monument is there now, but I think we should go through with this. Maybe there will be something else some other day, and everybody is entitled to that as peacekeepers. I think we probably do as much harm as we do good at this time, however, by trying to come up with this particular class.

.1555

Mr. Jack Frazer: Madam Chair, may I have one final word?

Basically, this letter is from the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association. It doesn't just represent people who would be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. It covers all of the veterans right up to today. All of them subscribe to this recognition.

I don't intend to protract this whole thing, General Dallaire, but I do not think this medal would be cause for division. All peacekeepers have said they think these people should be recognized. I'll rest my case there.

MGen Dallaire: I'm a new member of the association, but I think I would be quite prepared to debate that in forum with my colleagues. Although I'm still serving, I consider myself a veteran of UN missions. Under that context, I would indicate the same position I'm reflecting now.

This is not technical advice; this is very much human, one amongst ourselves. These things become very emotional very quickly. We're hoping to build a family with this medal, versus perhaps creating a separation under it.

The Chair: I think that basically says it all.

Did you wish to speak, Bob?

Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo - Cowichan, Ref.): No, I'm afraid I have missed the trend of this. I guess the only words I can put in come from my own experience with troops and the like. Very simply, recognition through a medal is recognition by the country, as well as by their own arm of the service. Recognition embodied in a medal is terrifically important. It's more important than financial -

The Chair: I think that's why the bill is coming through today.

Mr. Bob Ringma: It's tremendously important. I don't think you can overemphasize that, particularly amongst our other ranks. They don't get much recognition in rank, promotion, other emoluments, perks, or finance. They get it primarily through medals, so that would be my decision. It's terribly important.

The Chair: That's why we're here today: to make sure this gets through. Thank you,Mr. Ringma.

Mr. Leroux?

Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): No.

The Chair: Bob, do you wish to sum up? No? I gather, then, that you'd ask me to call the question on this motion.

Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: I shall say again that I think clause 3 has already carried as amended.

A voice: This is a new clause, clause 3.1.

The Chair: Okay, so it's defeated.

On clause 4 - Purpose and award of Medal

The Chair: We have two amendments to clause 4. We'll take a minute to have a look at both.

Mr. Jack Frazer: My amendment is on page R-4.

The Chair: Okay. Please give the chair a minute.

.1600

Mr. Frazer, I wonder if you and Mr. Proud might come to a meeting of minds here, because your amendments don't really appear to be at war with each other.

Mr. Jack Frazer: No, not at all.

Mr. George Proud: The amendment I propose comes from the legal people, who have said this would be the way in which it would be put into legal terms.

Mr. Jack Frazer: As long as the purpose is accomplished, George, I'm all for it, although I am suspicious of legal people sometimes.

Mr. George Proud: Well, I am too.

The Chair: Oh, don't leave out the details. There's no reason for that.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. George Proud: Some of them are around us today, too.

The Chair: It's not my legal training that you ought to be suspicious of.

Mr. George Proud: No, it isn't.

The Chair: Would you like to say something?

Mr. George Proud: Can I read out the amendment?

The Chair: Yes, you can. Please do so.

Mr. George Proud: I move that Bill C-300, in clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 12 to 25 on page 2 with the following:

The Chair: Could you read the rest of it?

Mr. George Proud: The rest of it? Yes:

The Chair: Is there any discussion?

Mr. Jack Frazer: The only thing I'm concerned about is that we went to straight peacekeeping there in some cases, as opposed to humanitarian assistance and that type of thing. Does this in fact include the whole ball of wax here?

Mr. George Proud: I know that's in there in another part dealing with other things like NGOs and people like that, Jack.

By the way, the wording should be ``Governor in Council''.

The Chair: I'm sorry, yes, it should be ``Governor in Council''. Could we change that?

Shall clause 4 carry as amended?

Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac - Gatineau - Labelle, Lib.): Whose amendment?

The Chair: The one we just did. Mr. Frazer's wasn't moved.

Mr. Jack Frazer: I put it on the table, but we had to get some legalese in there.

Amendment agreed to

Clause 4 as amended agreed to

On clause 5 - Purpose and award of Clasp

The Chair: You have an amendment to clause 5, Mr. Frazer.

Mr. Jack Frazer: Madam Chair, my amendment just removes a redundant ``the'' from before ``United Nations peacekeeping''. That's just strictly -

The Chair: Just a second, we have a government amendment to clause 5 as well. Who's moving that amendment?

Mr. John Richardson: Jack, you might want to let us move this amendment first. The rationale behind ours is that we have now already voted out the class, so this whole section is redundant. I therefore move the amendment that Bill C-300, in clause 5, be amended by deleting lines 26 to 31 on page 2.

Amendment agreed to

Clause 5 as amended agreed to

On clause 6 - Posthumous award

The Chair: We have new wording.

I don't see any difference in these two. Is there a difference? Am I looking at the wrong one? It's 7B, right?

.1605

A voice: Yes, it's 7B.

The Chair: That has nothing to do with the clasp.

The only difference is lines 32 to 39.

A voice: No, that's Mr. Frazer's.

The Chair: I know. I'm saying, here it says lines 32 to 39 and here it says lines 35 to 39.

A voice: The government had an original amendment.

The Chair: Yes. Are you saying the difference is between the two amendments?

Mr. John Richardson: There's a slight difference in lines being amended.

The Chair: All right. Mr. Richardson, I wonder if you'd go first and then Mr. Frazer.

Mr. John Richardson: It says:

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Frazer.

Mr. Jack Frazer: I would like to delete the words ``sent or'' in the proposal.

Mr. John Richardson: I would agree with that.

The Chair: So it would read ``shall be presented''.

Mr. Jack Frazer: Yes. The reason is this. I have a very irate letter from a constituent who received a medal in the mail and was not happy with that.

The Chair: So have I. Yes, I agree. So we'll just delete ``sent or''.

Other than that, is there any discussion?

Amendment agreed to

Clause 6 as amended agreed to

MGen Dallaire: Madam Chair, would I be out of order...?

The Chair: Not at all. What would you like to do?

MGen Dallaire: The statement you've just made - and that's why I was waiting for it - where you specify that it shall be presented, has significant ramifications. It is important that that be brought to our attention, because it will have administrative ramifications.

I totally agree that no one should ever get a medal in the mail at any time, nor next of kin. That is a very positive step forward as to how we're going to do business in the future.

Mr. George Proud: I agree.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. John Richardson: It comes into the overall morale question.

MGen Dallaire: Yes, sir, absolutely. There's nothing on the books now in fact, so that's why it could be sent in the mail.

On clause 7 - Wearing of Medal

The Chair: Would I be right - heaven defend me if I'm wrong - in saying the difference between the two amendments here would again relate to the clasp?

Mr. George Proud: Do you want me to give the official motion?

Mr. Jack Frazer: It's not only the clasp, Madam Chair.

Mr. George Proud: It reads:

Mr. Jack Frazer: I have no objections.

The Chair: All right.

Amendment agreed to

Clause 7 as amended agreed to

The Chair: Hooray! And people think we don't get along in the defence committee.

On clause 8 - Undress ribbon

.1610

Mr. George Proud: I move that Bill C-300 in clause 8 be amended by deleting lines 7 to 10 on page 3.

The Chair: Mr. Frazer.

Mr. Jack Frazer: As you know, I would prefer to have it the other way, but we've already done that.

Clause 8 as amended agreed to

On clause 9 - Acquisition and register

Mr. George Proud: I move that Bill C-300 in clause 9 be amended by deleting lines 11 to 20 on page 3.

Amendment agreed to

Clause 9 as amended agreed to

On clause 10 - Nomination by Minister

Mr. George Proud: I move that Bill C-300 in clause 10 be amended by replacing lines 21 to 34 on page 3 with the following:

Amendment agreed to

Clause 10 as amended agreed to

On clause 11 - Regulations

Mr. George Proud: I move that Bill C-300 in clause 11 be amended by replacing lines 39 to 41 on page 3 and lines 1 to 9 on page 4 with the following:

Amendment agreed to

Clause 11 as amended agreed to

On clause 12 - Prerogative not affected

Mr. George Proud: I move that Bill C-300 in clause 12 be amended by replacing lines 10 to 13 on page 4 with the following:

Amendment agreed to

Clause 12 as amended agreed to

On clause 13 - No appropriation

Mr. John Richardson: Madam Chair, I move to delete the clause. Money will be found to take the -

The Chair: Okay. Comments?

Amendment agreed to

On clause 1 - Short title

The Chair: Shall clause 1 carry?

Mr. Jack Frazer: We have a slight divergence here. My proposal is on page R-1. The only difference, I think, is that the government recommendation is that it be called the Canadian Peacekeeping Service Medal Act as opposed to the Canadian Peacekeeping Medal Act. I have no strong feelings either way. My name for it is shorter.

The Chair: Gentlemen, are there any comments?

Mr. Richardson, do you have a comment?

.1615

Mr. John Richardson: I think I'd just bow to the expert, if General Dallaire would like to comment.

The Chair: Yes, General Dallaire, which titles would you like to comment on?

MGen Dallaire: The terminology of ``service medal'' is exactly what we're trying to reflect for service. I think to leave it at ``peacekeeping'' tends to leave it too general, but also maybe too specific. It tends to be confusing. ``Service'' is an element that we would be honoured with if people were reflective of that. If that's included, it would be a very positive gesture.

Second, it's also very much in line with how we traditionally have stated such medals. So we would be very satisfied with that title.

The Chair: Mr. Richardson, would you like to move the amendment for clause 1?

Mr. John Richardson: I so move.

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clause 1 as amended agreed to

The Chair: We have to move the amendment to the title.

Mr. John Richardson: I so move.

The Chair: Shall the title carry as amended?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the bill carry as amended?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

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

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall I report the bill as amended to the house?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: For the record, I would just like to say that we recognize that we have deleted some clauses by amending them out of existence. We hope the procedural folk will forgive us and make the necessary words happen.

We thank you very much for all your help.

General Dallaire and your two majors, thank you very much.

Mr. John Richardson: I'd like to make a comment. I'd like to thank Jack Frazer for his work, as I know you do as well.

The Chair: I think the chair would be happy to entertain a motion of congratulations toMr. Frazer for his work.

Mr. John Richardson: I move that we congratulate Jack Frazer for the excellent work he's done in supporting this bill and for bringing it forward to the House.

The Chair: I think we can also ask Mr. Leroux to second that.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean H. Leroux: Yes, I second the motion.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much. We might also say a word that we were glad our colleague, George Proud, who has worked on this for a long time, is here as well.

MGen Dallaire: Madam Chair, may I also humbly put in for the serving members and future serving members to say that this medal fills an enormous void that we had.

I'll use a very simple example of my personal experience overseas. The Hercules crews that flew into Rwanda under fire were there for a period of time shorter than the normal methodology, and they have never had an instrument to recognize that service. This medal permits us to recognize the service of those people. It's a magnificent initiative on your part, sir.

The Chair: Thank you very much, General Dallaire. We really thank you for your contribution this afternoon, in the past, and in the future.

We shall adjourn to the call of the chair, which I believe is tomorrow morning at 9.

The meeting is adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page

;