Gordon O'Connor

[Question No. 131, May 9th, 2005]

Regarding the status of CFB Bagotville, does the government have any plans or, if there is no plan, has there been or are there ongoing discussions or consideration being given: ( a ) to close the base; ( b ) to eliminate or reduce any of its capabilities and/or personnel strength; or ( c ) to change its role or function?

[Petitions, May 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, lastly I have a petition regarding the treatment of autism, where petitioners call upon Parliament to amend the Canada Health Act to include IBI-ABA therapy as a medically necessary treatment and require all provinces to fund this treatment.

[Petitions, May 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions regarding the definition of marriage, whereby petitioners call upon Parliament to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Petitions, May 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions to present on behalf of my constituents in Carleton--Mississippi Mills.

First, I have three petitions regarding assisted suicide, whereby petitioners call upon Parliament not to sanction or allow the counselling, aiding or abetting of suicide, whether by personal action or the Internet.

[Almonte, Ontario, April 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today in the House of Commons to congratulate the town of Almonte, Ontario in my riding of Carleton—Mississippi Mills upon celebrating its 125th anniversary this year.

The town was named after Mexican diplomat and military leader, General Juan Almonte, whom the Scot and Irish settlers admired for his fierce loyalty in the defence of his homeland.

On September 25, 1880, Almonte was incorporated as a town. Almonte is the birthplace of famous sons Dr. James Naismith, the inventor of basketball; and Robert Tait Mackenzie, the sculptor and surgeon.

Almonte is an outstanding community that is recognized for its natural and architectural beauty, lively cultural scene, high quality of life and respect for its heritage and environment. It is a friendly town and its people embrace the true sense of community spirit. I feel very privileged to represent such a welcoming place.

I congratulate the citizens of Almonte on their 125th anniversary.

[Property Rights, April 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, private ownership of property and the development of that property is the basis of our national economic growth and prosperity. Yet the proclamation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 did not include property rights.

Property rights should include the right to buy, maintain, sell, bequeath or enjoy one's properties. Enshrining property rights would not prevent governments from interfering with the use of property but would have to provide appropriate compensation to the owners.

The current situation is particularly frustrating for rural landowners. For example, if the government decides that an animal species is in danger and one of them is found on a rural property, the owner cannot make use of the affected land. However the owner continues to pay taxes. If the owner tries to sell the land, no one is likely to buy it because it is unusable.

If property rights are acceptable in a communist country like China, why are they not acceptable in Canada? It is time for Parliament to protect property rights.

[National Defence, April 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there must be a byelection coming in Labrador because the Minister of National Defence is finally showing some interest in Goose Bay.

In press releases the minister says he is actively promoting flying training with NATO countries. I must ask, where was his government when the Dutch pulled out, and where is it now that the British have pulled out? The answer is nowhere.

Will the minister explain why training and employment under Liberal management continues to decline at Goose Bay?

[National Defence, April 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that is obscuring the facts: we are in missile defence.

Yesterday the minister said that “at the moment we've decided not to” participate in missile defence. Does this mean that the Liberal government will reconsider Canada's participation in the future?

Was the Prime Minister's recent decision merely a ploy to ensure that he would receive a favourable vote on his leadership at the Liberal convention?

[National Defence, April 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister told the defence committee that Norad would have died had Canada not agreed to provide radar information to the U.S. missile defence system.

The minister's delineation between presence and participation in missile defence is spin-doctoring. He thinks that just because Canada does not push the button, it is absolved of meaningful participation. This is simply false.

The Prime Minister has said we are not in missile defence, but the minister has confirmed we are. Who are Canadians to believe?

[First Nations, Métis and Inuit War Veterans, April 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as a former soldier, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the historic inequality of treatment and compensation for first nations, Métis and Inuit war veterans.

When Canada committed itself to fight in the three wars of the 20th century, Canada's first inhabitants responded quickly with impressive numbers. Many thousands of natives joined the armed forces and fought in the first world war, the second world war and the Korean war, just like large numbers of their fellow citizens.

However, upon their return from the wars, they were not treated the same as their fellow veterans, and that is the issue I wish to raise today.

Let me say at the beginning that I believe all Canadian war veterans should be treated the same regardless of race, colour, creed or sex. If people are willing to put their life on the line to defend our territory and our values, they have offered our society all that a human can offer. Upon returning from a war, it is incumbent upon Canada to acknowledge its responsibility to its veterans regardless of who they are or what their racial roots are.

This acknowledgement does not have a time limit since the country continues to benefit from the veterans' effort. However, in practical terms, the veterans or their spouses are all getting older and as the time period from the second world war and Korea war continues to expand. If they are to benefit, action must be taken as soon as possible.

Those who have either lived or read the history of the middle of the last century will know that we live in quite a different time than during the war periods. Our world view has changed from a very insular society to one that is open to the world and all the differences it brings. Anyone less than 50 years old may find that it is hard to believe that Canada was not always the multicultural, multiracial society it is today.

If we go back to the beginning of the wars, aboriginal Canadians faced distinct disadvantages in joining and participating in the military. At the time, a large number lived in remote communities and spoke neither English nor French. For many, joining the Canadian military marked their first exposure to the dress terminology and unique customs of Canadian society. Before leaving the reserve, many had not been on a train, had never seen a large transport ship and had not seen large cities. It was a dramatic cultural change for them.

Serving one's country in war time is both the highest honour and the most profound duty for a young man or woman. It demonstrates their willingness to assume the most demanding and dangerous obligations of citizenship and creates a debt of gratitude owed by the society they fight to protect. For the natives, volunteering confirmed their right to choose or not to choose the military and was valued because it was freely undertaken.

However, voluntary enlistment by the first nations was controlled by the recruitment rules of each of the three services. The Royal Canadian Navy posed the greatest hurdle. Until 1943, it only accepted people of pure European descent and of the white race. The Royal Canadian Air Force had its own colour line but in 1940 decided to accept North American Indians.

Nevertheless, the stringent health and education standards were challenges that very few native men or women could get past given the terrible state of health care and education provided on reserves prior to the war. The various restrictions meant that in practical terms the only avenue open to the first nations was the Canadian army. It accepted many thousands into its ranks of whom a large number served with distinction.

Late in the second world war, the government decided to institute conscription because of the heavy army casualties in the European campaign. The conscription of native men raised a number of questions. Compelling men to serve clashed with the essentially voluntary nature of military service in most native cultures, as well as their sense of place in Canada. Even more than the voluntary military service, the conscription of an individual was linked closely to his membership in the society requiring his service. From the point of view of natives, if the defence of the state was viewed as a duty demanding compulsory measures, then those called to duty had to belong and have a stake in the society and the state.

However status natives were considered wards of the state under the Indian Act of 1927 and, as such, legal minors. They possessed none of the rights of citizenship, most especially the right to vote. However they were considered British subjects and as British subjects they were legally in the same position as other Canadian citizens. Consequently, most native men were subject to conscription with the only exception being those who were in bands that possessed treaties that specifically exempted them from conscription. In the event, a number of natives were conscripted even though they did not have the rights of citizens.

The challenges of the natives continued at the end of World War II and the Korean War. Aboriginal natives, upon returning home, could not access the same re-establishment benefits as their non-aboriginal comrades. This was caused by either discrimination and/or bureaucratic inefficiency.

Non-aboriginal veterans of the military were offered the choice of educational opportunities, land benefits or funds paid on the basis of a certain amount of money per day of service. These benefits were not extended to natives.

Native soldiers were told to return to reserves after the war where they were to apply for benefits through the agents rather than directly with veterans affairs, unlike other soldiers. This extra layer of bureaucracy added confusion, delays and complications for a large number of native veterans and as a result they were denied the full extent of benefits to which they were entitled.

Compared to their non-native compatriots, native veterans were at a distinct disadvantage. They had limited access to information on veterans programs and benefits. Many reserves and aboriginal communities did not have radios and high illiteracy rates in English and French meant limited access to newspapers.

As was the custom at the time, most information on veterans programs was circulated through the Canadian Legion halls. At that time natives were prohibited from entering Legion halls due to the liquor prohibitions under the Indian Act. Therefore they did not have the information that passed around the Legion halls to other veterans.

As everyone knows, governments work very slowly. However, in the case of aboriginal veterans, progress was glacial. In 2000, some 45 to 50 years after the wars, the government convened a national round table on first nations veterans issues to study the treatment of first nations veterans. The round table report of 2001 confirmed that aboriginal veterans had not received equal opportunity upon their return from the wars.

In 2002 the federal government offered living first nations veterans and their spouses up to $20,000 each for benefits denied during the second world war and Korea. In return, these veterans had to sign away their rights to sue for further compensation. More than 1,700 took the offer but a large number did not ,and this offer did not address non-status Indians, Inuit and Métis.

One area that was in particular dispute was the situation of the Métis. The former veterans affairs minister promised acknowledgement and compensation for Métis veterans. However the current Indian affairs minister announced in November 2004 that the government would limit its actions to spending $100,000 to promote Métis contribution to Canada's war effort. The money will be used for a Métis outreach program to produce a report and a video. It will not go to the veterans.

Let me say that I firmly believe that equality of treatment of war veterans seems fundamental to this issue. I find it difficult to understand that we continue to shortchange war veterans from their due compensation. They are a diminishing number and their youngest are in their eighties. If the government were dealing with a demographic that was growing in number, then I could understand hesitancy on whether the nation could afford the cost because, in a practical sense, once a benefit is given it cannot be taken away.

However this is not the case with respect to veterans. The amount they are seeking is relatively small in today's terms. The federal government consumes approximately $200 billion annually. The need of a few aboriginal veterans or their spouses could hardly make a dint in this vast amount of money.

Our veterans defended our democracy when we need them and, in a large part, their efforts against the great scourges of the 20th century Nazism and Communism have permitted us to enjoy the benefits of democracy and capitalism that we have today. In some ways we act like spoiled children who appreciate the benefits we have but we do not want to acknowledge the efforts of the generations that preceded us.

Today Canada is a rich country in terms of wealth and values. We are not the same country that native veterans went to war to protect. Through their commitment and outstanding performance, along with our other veterans, they helped change Canada for the good.

With the values we hold today, it is clear that native veterans were subject to unfair discrimination. If people are considered good enough to serve their country in war, then they are good enough to be compensated for their services. In the trench no one cares about race, religion or colour. Bullets are indiscriminate.

It is time for Canada to step up to our responsibilities. We must acknowledge that our actions more than 50 years ago were not just and that time is well overdue to provide the appropriate compensation to our aboriginal war veterans.

Therefore I would ask the House to acknowledge the historic inequality of treatment and compensation for first nations, Métis and Inuit war veterans in a way that truly respects their service and sacrifice. We must do the right thing.