Gordon Earle

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-17. The bill amends the criminal code with respect to cruelty to animals, disarming a peace officer and other amendments and makes technical amendments to the Firearms Act.

At the outset I would say generally that the NDP is opposed to omnibus legislation. The matters contained in the bill have been lumped together and have very little in common. They deserve to be dealt with as separate pieces of legislation. Having said that, however, the bill deals with very important issues and we will be supporting the bill.

As has been indicated, the bill amends the criminal code by consolidating animal cruelty offences into one section and introducing new offences for brutally or viciously killing an animal or abandoning one. It creates an offence for disarming or attempting to disarm a peace officer. It also makes a number of technical amendments. The bill also amends the Firearms Act by expanding the class of prohibited handguns that are grandfathered and modifying the employee licensing requirements.

I want to dwell upon a couple of very important points in the bill. I will leave some of the other points to my hon. colleagues.

Cruelty to animals is certainly a topic of concern for a lot of people. The changes to the criminal code dealing with cruelty to animals stem from a public outcry over a large number of highly publicized cases involving animal abuse over the past few years. The hon. member opposite mentioned a number of these incidents in alarming detail.

As a result, animal welfare groups, humane societies and the public have been calling for tougher measures to protect animals and punish abusers. The justice department issued a discussion paper entitled “Crimes Against Animals” in 1998 and received thousands of responses from the public.

While some might view cruelty to animal provisions as a low priority, we are fully aware that studies have shown an alarming connection between animal abuse and other forms of serious violent offences, in particular domestic violence. A significant percentage of those who are violent toward animals later perpetuate violence against people. It does not take a lot of in-depth knowledge to understand why that is the case.

When we see a lack of appreciation for life, no matter what the level of that life may be, it certainly has an impact upon society. Children who are used to, who become used to, or who are not admonished for cruelty to animals will certainly grow up with an attitude that it does not matter if they hurt a living entity.

It is sad to see in our world today a lot of desensitizing as to how we relate to fellow human beings. We see so much violence on television. We watch some of the TV programs. It is amazing the degree of violence we can see being perpetuated through TV, through movies, and even now through a lot of the video games that children play. There are games played where people shoot, kill or harm individuals. One may say it is just a game, but I think it is slowly creating an atmosphere where children become insensitive to harming one another.

Look at what is happening in wartorn countries around the world. We see situations such as Sierra Leone, where children's arms and legs are amputated. I often ask myself how one human being can be so cruel to another human being. I am afraid that people who harm animals and who are insensitive to the pain that animals feel are capable of doing the same thing to fellow human beings.

It is very important that the issue be addressed. The proposed amendments on animal cruelty will raise the maximum penalty for intentional cruelty to five years in prison and will not set limits on fines. It is important to have a serious penalty for such an offence.

It will give judges the authority to order anyone convicted of cruelty to animals to pay restitution such as veterinary bills and shelter costs to the animal welfare organization that cared for the animal. It will prohibit anyone convicted of cruelty to animals from owning an animal for however long the judge considers appropriate. There are some very serious penalties for a very serious offence. Another very important aspect of the legislation that merits some comment is the disarming of a police officer. We know that the job of a police officer is a very important one. It is a job that a lot of people would not want, yet we look for our police officers when we need them. These people often put their lives on the line in the course of duty. A police officer may have to stop a car on a busy highway. When the officer moves up to the car he or she may end up facing death because the driver has a firearm and is out to harm them. There are many situations of domestic violence where police walk into a situation and their lives are literally put at risk.

The legislation concerning the disarming of a police officer is very important and significant to the well-being of our police officers. It will create a new offence for disarming or attempting to disarm a police officer and will set the maximum penalty for that at five years imprisonment. This is intended to highlight the seriousness of the offence and is supported by many policing organizations across the country, including the Canadian Police Association, which lobbied strenuously for this particular provision.

The NDP supports this provision. We feel it is important to support those who put their lives on the line for society, including police officers, firefighters and people in our armed services. These people are not appreciated in the way they should be and this legislation goes one step in moving toward the proper appreciation for this kind of function.

I am very pleased to stand and support the legislation and the underlying principles that are involved in the kinds of amendments that have been proposed. Those principles underscore our respect for life and for living entities, whether they be animals or human beings. The respect for the role of the police officer is necessary if we are going to make this the kind of society in which we want to live.

When police officers perform their duties, their side arm is a very important tool. It is not necessarily one that they would use on every occasion, but it is something that they have been trained to respect and have been given proper instructions on how to use it. It is a necessary part of their equipment in law enforcement. When someone attempts to disarm a police officer, it puts them at a very serious disadvantage. They cannot deal properly with the situation they are faced with because they are busy worrying about trying to keep that firearm out of the hands of someone who is probably going to use it to the disadvantage of the police officer.

These principles are very important. The NDP stands in support of this legislation and urges all hon. members in the House give their support to it.

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I ask for the consent of the House to split my time with the hon. member for Churchill.

[Petitions, September 26th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition relates to our health care system. The petitioners are concerned about the state of our health care system.

They call upon the government to stop the for profit hospitals, the privatization of our health care system, to restore, as has been indicated already, the complete restoration of funding necessary for a good health care system, to implement a national home care program and a program for prescription drugs. This is something that seriously affects many of our seniors and many people on low and fixed incomes.

[Petitions, September 26th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present two petitions. The first one deals with the gathering of organs at death for transplant.

The petitioners make a very important point that the unavailability of organs for transplant and the long wait needed for transplant results in long periods of suffering and compromised recoveries for transplant recipients.

The petitioners call upon the House to enact legislation to allow for the automatic gathering of organs at death for transplants.

[Civilian War-Related Benefits Act, September 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to address Bill C-41, an act to amend the statute law in relation to veterans' benefits.

I am going to provide the House with some background information. This bill proposes to provide benefits for civilian groups that served Canada overseas, such as the Canadian Red Cross, St. John Ambulance, the Newfoundland Overseas Forestry Unit, the Corps of Canadian Firefighters and other organizations.

The bill proposes to allow Canadian forces members to receive disability benefits while still serving their country, thereby ensuring equality with those whose disabilities arose in special duty area service and reserve force service.

I am pleased to state at the outset that there may be some issues we wish to pursue in committee. Some of these have been mentioned already by previous speakers, for example, section 46 concerning the RCMP and also the concern of the legions with respect to retroactivity. While we may want to pursue these in committee, the New Democratic Party at this point stands in support of the bill.

I do have some skepticism. My skepticism does not arise from the words in the legislation, but from the government's intent on following through with its commitment to Canada's veterans.

According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, almost half of the claims received from merchant mariners are still waiting to be processed. These Canadians risked life and limb during the war to deliver fuel, food, goods and people, and were under attack from German submarines, facing casualty and, all too often, death. Every month more of these brave members of our communities succumb to illness and old age.

It has been estimated that merchant mariners are dying at the rate of about 12 per month. The Department of Veterans Affairs reportedly has 45 people working on these claims. Clearly, staffing levels should be increased to meet the demand created by merchant mariners' claims. The decision not to hire more staff likely translates into a decision to let more merchant mariners die without seeing their claims processed and justice done.

Furthermore, if the government wishes Bill C-41 to be taken seriously by the people who would be affected by the bill, it should state here now that it is committed to ensuring that all merchant mariners entitled to compensation will receive their full benefits and that the government will not turn its back on these merchant mariners after the first payments have been made.

The legislation sets out to extend veterans benefits to a number of civilian groups with overseas service and would allow all serving members of the Canadian armed forces who suffer a service related disability to receive disability pensions while serving.

As the New Democratic Party representative on the all party Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, I am pleased to see that the government is responding to issues raised by our committee in a positive way. Allowing the serving members of the forces who qualify for disability pensions to receive these disability pensions while serving does indeed begin to address issues relating to the quality of life of Canadian forces members.

While I am pleased to see that the government is taking some steps toward addressing the issues raised by the all party standing committee, I strongly suggest that the government could be doing much more to address broader issues relating to working and living conditions for our troops.

Military personnel who live on bases in single quarters or in permanent married quarters must contend with old and deteriorating accommodations that are among the worst to be found in this country. The quarters in some regions were called dilapidated by the committee, and that was being very generous. From leaky roofs to cramped, old, deteriorating spaces, Canada's forces personnel deserve much better from the country they so admirably served, and in particular from the Liberal government that is responsible for these decisions.

Canadian forces accommodation policy cites the need for well maintained quarters, respecting dignity, privacy, safety and security. The Liberal government's policy is “tough luck, you lose”.

The Liberal government had cash on hand to spend $15 million building a brand new armoury in Shawinigan which, by a great coincidence, happens to be in the Prime Minister's own riding.

As I have said, the legislation sets out to ensure serving forces personnel may receive disability pensions while still serving. In other words, troops serving Canadians through assisting with crises, like the great ice storm of 1998, fighting floods on the Red River or working as peacekeepers in Bosnia, would be able to collect a veterans affairs disability pension while continuing to serve the country. This will ensure equity with members whose disabilities arose in special duty areas and reserve force service.

We support the legislation as it would extend veterans benefits to certain civilian groups who served overseas in close support of the war effort. This would include groups such as the Canadian Red Cross, St. John Ambulance, Newfoundland Overseas Foresters, Canadian firefighters, pilots who ferried across the Atlantic and other groups who assisted the military overseas. This move will provide these individuals with greater access to Veterans Affairs Canada income support, disability pensions and additional health care benefits, including the veterans independence program.

The overseas crew of the Ferry Command assisted the war effort by ferrying military aircraft across the Atlantic Ocean from North America. During the second world war, some 340 Canadian and Newfoundland civilian pilots and aircrew were under contract to deliver aircraft from North America to Britain and elsewhere. The members of the Ferry Command, who today number approximately 100 people, have never had access to veterans programs.

The Newfoundland Overseas Forestry Unit assisted the war effort by cutting timber in Scotland, which was then predominantly used in British coal mining operations. Britain quickly realized the increased production of coal was a strategic imperative to fuel the war effort and thus the immediate need for experienced loggers to produce timber for mining was paramount.

Over the course of the war some 3,680 Newfoundlanders served in the Newfoundland Overseas Forestry Unit although many later transferred to the British armed forces or served with the British Home Guard. There are about 1,000 members alive today.

When Canada was negotiating the terms of union several years after the war it was agreed that Newfoundland armed forces members would be eligible for veterans benefits from Canada but members of the forestry unit were not included in that agreement.

During the second world war the Canadian Corps of Firefighters served in the United Kingdom. It served the war effort by fighting fires in Britain that were created by the dreaded blitz.

Also during the war overseas welfare workers, which included members of the Canadian Red Cross and St. John Ambulance served overseas in support of the injured. They have had basic access to income tested veterans programs but limited or no access to pensions for a service related disability and no access to the veterans independence program.

One of the more important aspects of the bill is working to ensure equity of access to services and benefits to all Canadian forces members regardless of whether the injury occurred in Canada or in a foreign deployment.

At the present time Canadian forces members can only receive a Veterans Affairs Canada disability pension for a service related disability if the disability occurred in or resulted from service in a special duty area such as a peacekeeping mission.

For those Canadian forces members who suffer a service related disability while fighting a flood in Canada, for example, their disability can be assessed and their entitlement to a disability pension may be agreed upon while they are still serving. However, no Veterans Affairs Canada disability pension can begin to be paid until after they have left the Canadian forces.

The amendments in Bill C-41 would remove this inequity and allow all Canadian forces members with a related disability to receive a Veterans Affairs Canada disability pension upon application regardless of where the injury occurred.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the legions in my riding of Halifax West for their work not only in support of veterans but also in terms of the incredibly positive role they play in the community.

I have attended many events hosted by these legions. I continue to be struck not only by their camaraderie but also by their social conscience and community support. The legions in my area have sponsored seniors dinners at Christmastime. When we go to those dinners and see the joy on the faces of those seniors, we realize how much these veterans are giving back even yet to their communities in terms of supporting our seniors and helping to bring some joy and happiness into their lives.

I have attended special awards nights where legions honour members who have served for a long time within their organizations. It is important that we honour people while they are still alive. Far too often people are spoken of after they have gone. It is nice when we take the time to honour people while they can still appreciate receiving that honour for the service they are rendering.

I have also gone to events in the Camp Hill hospital in Halifax where legion members go at Christmastime and visit with seniors and people who live in those residences. They take not only material gifts but also the gifts of love and compassion. The appreciation is reflected in the faces of the people who reside in that facility when someone comes around and wishes them a merry Christmas and a happy new year and shows some interest and concern in their state of well-being.

I have a cousin who is a veteran. He unfortunately suffered a stroke many years ago so he is not able to speak. He recognizes me and has a wonderful smile on his face when I go to visit him. The legion from Whites Lake quite often takes the residents from Camp Hill out to its headquarters to a special event for them.

On one occasion when my cousin was there a family with a small infant allowed him to hold the baby. Just seeing the look on his face, the smile, the sense of contentment and happiness at holding that young child, showed that even though he was disabled by a stroke he still had a certain compassion and a certain sense of well-being. His relationship with that infant was something that one had to be there to experience.

This tells us again how important veterans are to our community and what they give back to our community. Even those who may appear to have a disability are still able to give and to appreciate love and respect.

I thank the following legions in my area for their ongoing work: The Beford Royal Canadian Legion Branch No. 95, Lakeside Royal Canadian Legion Branch No. 156, Spryfield Royal Canadian Legion Branch No. 152, St. Margarets Bay Royal Canadian Legion Branch No. 116, and Whites Lake Royal Canadian Legion Branch No. 153.

I want to have it recorded in the House of Commons that these legions provide an outstanding service to their communities and for this we thank them.

As we stand in support of this legislation, the point I want to leave is that anything we can do to advance the cause of equity, fairness and justice for veterans who served our country so well we should be glad to do. It is for this reason that the NDP is standing in support of this legislation.

[Veterans Affairs, September 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, while this House is currently debating Bill C-41, veterans benefit legislation, it is significant to note that the issue of compensation to our merchant seamen has not yet been satisfactorily concluded.

According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, almost half of the claims received from merchant mariners are still waiting to be processed. These Canadians risked life and limb during the war to deliver fuel, food, goods and people and were under attack from German submarines, facing casualties and all too often death.

Every month more and more of these brave members of our community succumb to illness and old age. It has been estimated that the merchant mariners are dying at the rate of 12 per month.

I ask this government to resolve this matter immediately and pay those who qualify so that this injustice will not persist one day longer.

[National Defence Act, June 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, very young Canadians have no place in combat. I am sure every member of the House would agree that one of the greatest tragedies of human history is the death and injury of children due to decisions of adults to go to war. No story, no accounting, no photos, no listing of the savaging of our children by war could ever begin to encompass this tragedy, for children who are killed and injured in war are killed and injured by us as adults and especially as federal legislators.

We are the ones in the country responsible for the actions not only of Canada but to some degree of other countries, for it is our actions and sometimes even more so our lack of action that give silent credence to acts of war and aggression by other countries. Children die as a result.

We need to do more to protect all children in the world. Therefore, we should be doing much more to strengthen the capacity of UNICEF in particular and the UN in general to have greater strength and influence in moving toward an end to both the use of children in war—and surely this is the most despicable form of the term “use”—and, in turn, the impact of war on children.

On behalf of the federal New Democratic Party I stand in support of this bill to prevent any person under 18 years of age from becoming deployed by the Canadian forces to a theatre of hostilities.

Graca Machel was appalled that Canada, of all countries, had not raised the minimum military age to 18. In September 1998, when visiting Canada with her husband, Nelson Mandela, she said “This is one of the things that breaks my heart”.

While passing this bill is important, Canada should do much more. We should play a much stronger role in working within the United Nations to raise to 18 the minimum age of recruitment in the convention on the rights of the child. This age is currently set at the absolutely unacceptable age of 15 years.

Graca Machel, as part of her work on the global partnership for children, stated:

We also know that world-wide, some 300,000 children world-wide are involved in some phase of armed conflict. And that each year between 8,000 and 10,000 children are maimed or killed by anti-personnel mines.

On a technical point with regard to this bill, I would be happier if the bill had said that a person who is under the age of 18 may not be deployed by the Canadian forces to any hostility or to a theatre of hostilities. I feel such wording may be more encompassing and inclusive; however, I understand that the wording used in this bill may in the last instance suffice.

This legislation should pass for two reasons: one, to protect our own children and, two, to send a message to the international community. Having said that, I fear that all too often this parliament passes motions and bills about which we can feel proud and good, but the work stops there. In this case, passing this bill is simply not enough. We must do more. For all the children who are suffering and who will suffer in war, we should be doing much more as a country.

Canada has the opportunity to become a leading character on the world stage on this issue. Failure to support this bill would be abominable, but failure to take more action on the world stage would be an atrocity.

[Merchant Marine Veterans, June 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Veterans Affairs announced long overdue payments to our merchant marine veterans he talked about “their enormous contribution and sacrifice”.

Now that the funds set aside appear to be drying up, will the minister clearly state to these veterans and their surviving spouses right now that the Liberal government will ensure that all qualifying applicants receive their maximum payment, or is he now qualifying how much sacrifice and contribution he believes these veterans made?

[Petitions, June 9th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, the third petition also deals with health but it concerns the issue of automatic harvesting of organs at death for transplants.

The many people who have signed this petition recognize that the unavailability of organs for transplant causes a lot of difficulty, a long wait, undue suffering and compromised recovery for transplant recipients, and that there is a limited time window for the harvesting of organs.

The petitioners call upon the government to enact legislation to allow automatic harvesting of organs at death for transplants unless specific requests to the contrary have been made.

[Petitions, June 9th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am indeed pleased to rise to table three petitions. The first two are petitions from many Canadians who are concerned about the public health care system.

The petitioners recognize that the federal government is funding the health care system at less than 15% of the cost and that this has certainly opened the door to a two tier style American health care system.

The petitioners call upon the federal government to stop the for profit hospitals and restore federal funding for health care, and also to implement a national home care program and a national program for prescription drugs.