Peter Goldring

[Samuel De Champlain Day Act, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-428, an act establishing Samuel de Champlain day. The bill is sponsored by the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest.

Under this bill, commencing in 2004, June 26 will be designated as Samuel de Champlain day. The timing of the enactment is to coincide with the 400th anniversary of the establishment of the first French settlement by Champlain on St. Croix Island in 1604.

The hon. member, when introducing the bill in the House, mentioned that passage of this bill would be important to those in New Brunswick due to the planned celebrations for the 400th anniversary of Champlain's first North American settlement.

It should be remembered that Champlain's association with New Brunswick is but one small component of a life of much larger travels. If Champlain were to be honoured for his discoveries, that honour should be shared by southern Ontario, the northern United States, southern Quebec, as well as New Brunswick. It should also be remembered that Champlain's discoveries were on behalf of France. His reward for those discoveries was to be named the governor of New France.

While Champlain's voyages were on behalf of France, some might argue that there was no Canada at the time to reference Champlain's accomplishments. People might then be inclined to argue that Champlain's discoveries were closely tied to the French origins of New France. In my view this misses the point. If Champlain is so important to Canada as we know it today, he should be equally heralded in the United States. After all, the majority of the territory that Champlain discovered and mapped is now part of the northeast United States.

Champlain's famous 1632 map of New France, while lauded as a demonstration of the extent of his discoveries, in fact includes land that was mostly explored by others. Who explored the Labrador, the Hudson Bay, the Rupert's Land and the Northwest Territories coastlines? It was not Champlain. It was Henry Hudson, the discoverer of Hudson Bay; Captain Vancouver, after whom the city of Vancouver was named; and John Cabot, considered to be the first discoverer of Canada. Their discoveries are no less significant to the establishment of Canada than those of Champlain, yet we do not honour them or accord them any particular federal honours.

In my opinion, exalting Champlain's accomplishment in the manner proposed demonstrates an elitist-centrist approach to the discoveries of our country. Many appear more than willing to honour anyone who explored in the area around the St. Lawrence rather than those who bravely mapped our significantly more vast northern and western territories. People who consider the north to be Lake Nipissing ignore the reality of geography and history of 80% of Ontario.

In my view, an appropriate manner by which to view Champlain's accomplishments is illustrated by how he was honoured by Canada's Merchant Navy during World War II. The Merchant Navy fleet had many ships known as park ships. In time of war, when an accurate representation of a nation was crucial, there was no Champlain fleet delivering supplies to the troops. Rather, Champlain's name was on but one of the ships in the fleet. In a similar vein Champlain's accomplishments should be viewed as part of a much larger group of discoveries. No one person is accorded a federal honour. Rather the federal honour is to the collective effort.

The bill is too narrowly focused and it is for this reason that I am reluctant to support it. Samuel de Champlain is more commonly more known as the father of New France, relative to his later establishment of settlements in Quebec. This fact is acknowledged in the preamble of the bill where it is stated that he was influential in the development of two further settlements: one at Port Royal on the Bay of Fundy and one at Quebec. The Quebec settlement was established in 1608, four years after the events which are to be commemorated by the bill currently under consideration.

The issue raised here is whether it is more appropriate for Samuel de Champlain day to be proclaimed by the New Brunswick legislature rather than by this House. At the federal level we should acknowledge Champlain for his discovery or for the discovery that he is best known nationally. Even the Acadian Centre in a publication on Champlain acknowledges that Champlain is above all recognized as the founder of Quebec.

Champlain exemplified the multi-talented nature of many of our nation's heroes. He was both an explorer and a cartographer. He also wrote much about his travels and lived from 1567 to 1635. His first voyage in 1599 is when he explored the West Indies and Mexico. In 1603 at the age of 36, sponsored by a fur trader, Champlain commanded a ship that explored the St. Lawrence River as far as Montreal is located today. The purpose of this voyage was to colonize the new world though this objective apparently was not accomplished.

Champlain's 1604 actions in Acadia on the Isle of St. Croix appear to be categorized by its nature as a trading post creation. While Champlain arrived in Acadia in 1604, the first fort in the area, Fort Latour, was not constructed until 27 years later in 1631. In fact, at least one historian considers that Champlain essentially lost his optimism for the future of Acadia after having spent three winters there. This is one of the explanations given for Champlain's 1608 voyage and consequent founding of Quebec City.

It was in 1608 that Champlain is regarded as having established his first European settlement in what is now known as Quebec City. One reason for this is the official capacity in which Champlain returned to North America. He was the lieutenant governor of New France. The Quebec City settlement was followed by the establishment in 1611 of a settlement in Montreal.

In 1629 when Quebec was captured by the English the 62 year old Champlain was sent back to England as a prisoner. Champlain only was able to return to Quebec after New France was returned to France. He returned to his trading post in 1663 and to his position as governor of New France where he died two years later.

Acadians in New Brunswick understandably have an identification with Champlain and he should be honoured accordingly. His identification with Canada as a nation as well as his association with North America generally are somewhat different. In Acadia Samuel de Champlain is honoured by an educational school and a community centre being named in his honour as of 1985.

Champlain's name is also encountered on educational and other buildings throughout Canada. Lake Champlain is named after him, a lake that Champlain discovered in 1609. The Centre for Study of Canada at Plattsburgh State University has an annual scholarly symposium named after him. Ironically the theme of this year's Samuel de Champlain symposium 2000 is “The Quiet Revolution in Quebec: Looking Back After 40 Years”.

Based on the foregoing sentiments Champlain may certainly be viewed as having involvements in some significant events prior to the founding of Canada. I believe that his official role as governor of New France points to the greater appropriateness of a Quebec based commemoration of his life. Accordingly I cannot support the bill before the House as it is currently worded because it focuses too narrowly on one man when many more explored and established Canada.

[The Unknown Soldier, May 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker,

Whenever we embark On a voyage of remembrance We well expect that the trying time Could exact more human toll

The expedition bringing Canada's Unknown Soldier home from Vimy, France Was a wonderful effort by President Chuck Murphy and the Royal Canadian Legion.

Chuck was to see this millennium dream succeed. He was to bring an Unknown Soldier home To a final rest on Canada's soil; then he himself passed away.

Today we remember two soldiers, One unknown, who represents all war dead And the one who brought him home

Chuck Murphy, Dominion Command President of the Royal Canadian Legion Husband to Alice, Father, grandfather and friend,

At the going down of the sun and In the morning, we will remember him.

[Vimy Ridge, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, today its majestic white spires are basking in the sun and gentle breezes. The tranquillity of Vimy Ridge supremely contrasts the terror of old when 100,000 Canadians moved forth in a hell of inhumanity testing their mettle and mortality of soul.

They advanced on unconquerable Vimy. Canada's finest young men won the contest that day. A victory for all the world to see.

Today the monument that honours Canada's great war soldiers decays. Vimy shamefully succumbs to the ravages of neglect. This superb memorial to our veterans and war dead must not crumble and slip to the plains below. Vimy must not be allowed to fade to dust. We must keep the will to preserve this majestic torch and to keep it lit for all time as a reminder of Canada's true price of peace this century past, 100,000 war dead.

[The Unknown Soldier, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to respond to the statement of the Minister of Veterans Affairs.

The events to occur next week are truly historic and long overdue. The ceremonies in Ottawa will bring together all provinces, since earth gathered from each province and the soil of France where a soldier fell so long ago, will be interred with his remains.

Next week a soldier will be carried home from the shadow of Vimy Ridge to rest forever on Canadian soil, not to the town he left so long ago, for we know not where he lived, not to his family's home, for we know not who his family is, but home he will come to rest in an honourable place and to receive the deserving respect of all as we, the public, remember the war, think of his soul and ponder the supreme “price of peace” that his death reflects.

These actions show to us that the unknown soldier represents all Canadians. In falling at Vimy, the unknown soldier fell in a crucial battle, a Canadian victory that all the world would see.

Many would say that Canada took birth that day. Born into the world of nations with respect, born by the blood of our young, born through the determination and skill. Their spirit lives on to this day.

Over 60,000 Canadian soldiers died in “the war to end all wars”. This last century, over 100,000 Canadians never returned home. More than 27,000 of our war dead, nearly 25% of all Canadians who lost their lives in fighting for our freedoms, have no marked grave having been buried at sea or on land. It is this soldier's life and his death that is of singular importance at this time. The unknown soldier is whom we speak of today. His name is known only unto God. Soon he will rest in peace on Canadian soil. Soon he will be with his family; all Canadians who will honour his past. Soon he will be home at long last.

[Criminal Code, May 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in my parliamentary capacity as official opposition critic for veterans affairs, I am pleased to rise today to contribute to the debate on Bill C-334, an act to amend the criminal code, wearing of war decorations, sponsored by the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast.

War medals in Canada represent a long and proud tradition of service to our country. Shortly after Confederation, Canadians, both French and English, joined to halt the Fenian raiders and the Red River insurrection.

In 1870, to commemorate this service, Canada's first medal was struck. It was emblazoned with ribbon striped in red, white and red, appropriately the colours of Canada's present flag. The maple leaf, long the symbol for Canada and carved in the walls of the trenches at Vimy Ridge, borders the medal. This medal, and now our flag, are proud reminders of Canada's first war veterans' successful efforts at keeping Canada whole and defending our freedoms from insurrection and foreign invasion.

It is presently a criminal code offence for anyone, other than the holder of war medals, to wear them. Under Bill C-334 it is proposed that section 419 of the criminal code be amended by adding a section permitting a relative of a deceased veteran to wear on Remembrance Day any medal that has been awarded to that deceased veteran. To clearly indicate that the medals were not awarded to the relative, such persons are to wear them on the right side of the chest rather than the left side, as is customary among actual veterans. To avoid confusion, relatives who are in the Canadian military and in uniform are not permitted to wear the deceased veteran's medals.

The current prohibition against relatives wearing the medals of veterans is comparatively unique among commonwealth countries. Great Britain apparently has no law governing the issue. This does not mean there is an endorsed practice concerning the wearing of military honours by family members. It simply means that in Great Britain the issue has been largely left to the public's best judgment.

In Australia legislation provides that a family member of a deceased veteran may wear a service decoration if the family member does not represent himself as being the war veteran.

In the United States, by contrast, the practice is specifically prohibited as it is in Canada. In the United States a medal may be pinned on the next of kin of a deceased veteran, but such pinning does not entitle the next of kin to wear the medal publicly. It remains the property and the honour of the deceased alone.

It is noteworthy that the prohibition of the wearing of medals and related honours is found in a criminal code section which addresses the unlawful use of military uniforms or certificates as well. The matter is considered to be so serious that there is a reverse onus of proof. The accused must prove that he or she had lawful authority to wear a Canadian forces uniform or medal or to be in possession of a military discharge certificate.

There are several arguments made in support of permitting relatives of Canadian war veterans to wear their war honours, at least on Remembrance Day. One of the key advocates of Bill C-334 is Christine Ballantine, a constituent of the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast. As has been publicly reported, the issue is of particular importance to her since she never knew her father who died in the second world war when she was about eight months old.

Ms. Ballantine's father was a British airman. His war medals are in her possession. In 1994, upon visiting Normandy where her father died, Ms. Ballantine personally received an additional medal awarded to her father by the Government of France.

If Ms. Ballantine were attending Remembrance Day ceremonies in Britain she could wear her father's medals in honour of his memory without fearing that she had committed an offence. In Canada she must wear the medals concealed under her coat.

The Royal Canadian Legion appears to be of two minds with respect to the bill. The Dominion Command appears to have strong reservations while local legion representatives are more supportive.

One main argument for permitting the wearing of war medals by relatives relates to the diminishing number of war veterans. Many of the medals and related honours are now either private family mementoes or the currency of collectors. The public's association with the actual person who was honoured diminishes year by year as our veterans pass away.

Where the bill could be improved is with respect to defining the term of relative. Relative should be defined to mean the widow or widower of a deceased veteran or a parent, child, brother, sister, grandparent or grandchild, whether by blood, marriage or adoption. Such definition would appear to provide constructive limitations as to which family members could wear the medals. Nephews and nieces and others not as closely connected to the deceased veteran would not be able to honour him or her through the wearing of medals.

The definition of relative could be expanded as times change and circumstances warrant. Under the current definition, if adopted, the youngest relative who could wear the medal of a deceased veteran would be his or her grandchild.

Under the bill the wearing by relatives on Remembrance Day of any ribbon, badge, chevron, decoration or order is also permitted. In my opinion the bill should be limited in application to medals, in particular full size Canadian or commonwealth general service issue medals as opposed to miniatures.

My reason for restricting the application of the bill is based on the question of how one could wear a ribbon, badge, chevron or any decoration or order when it is specified in the bill that relatives are to wear the medals on the right side of their chest.

The term chevron refers to a badge in a V shape, sewn on the sleeve of a uniform indicating rank or length of service. Similarly such honours as the Order of Military Merit are not awarded as a medal but as a pendant to be worn around the neck. A relative wearing such an honour around the neck could not be readily distinguished from another who earned the honour.

For these reasons I suggest that the bill be limited to medals only and will propose an amendment to that effect. I therefore would encourage that Bill C-334 be amended as follows:

That subsection 2 of section 1 of Bill C-334 be amended by deleting the words “ribbon, badge, chevron or any decoration or order” contained therein.

It is a noble and worthwhile objective to permit close relatives to honour their departed veteran family members on Remembrance Day through the public display of their medals of honour. However this view is not shared by any major veterans organization.

I hope that during the committee hearings these organizations will reconsider their position. I consider myself to be obliged to respect their wishes. As they are the representatives and the voices of veterans for the vast majority of veterans and ex-service personnel in Canada, I will reflect the collective wishes of these veterans when we vote.

[National Defence, May 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, depleted uranium, a radioactive nuclear waste, is a common weapons component on today's battlefields.

A report released by the Royal Military College in Kingston informs us that depleted uranium fallout may lead to cancer, mutations and unacceptable levels of toxins.

Will the Minister of National Defence call for our military to discontinue the use and stockpiling of depleted uranium for the sake of our returning soldiers' health? Has the minister yet enacted any of the report's recommendations?

[Holland, May 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, 55 years ago freedom arrived in the heart of Holland; freedom bringing hope for a future built upon the sacrifices of the day; freedom brought at a very high price.

Row upon row of Canada's youth rest on Dutch soil, testament to a supreme effort in bringing an end to Holland's war torment. The Dutch remember this true price of peace.

This week the people of Holland opened their homes and hearts and welcomed thousands of Canada's veterans. They honoured them on parade and remembered the dead. Three hundred thousand cheered Canada's war soldiers as they proudly marched under royal review.

The Dutch touched all with their sincerity and respectful thoughts for Canada's honourable war veterans and remembered war dead. Holland paused and gave its respect. I thank Holland and and Canada's war veterans.

[Volunteer Week 2000, April 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations to Edmonton North District Area Council Two. They are celebrating 25 years of volunteer commitment to our communities on Volunteer Week 2000.

I wish to recognize all who have given unselfishly to volunteer and contribute to many worthwhile projects. Contributors permit the soil of aspirations to be cultivated, help breathe life into dreams, nurture mere ideas to fruition and bring the riches of goals to harvest.

Volunteers give freely of their daily lives. Their efforts add to our quality of being and are vital contributors to success, as dreams take wing and rise to lofty heights. All volunteers have my deepest appreciation for outstanding service to their communities. I wish everyone continued success and welcome their community leadership. I extend a sincere thanks to everyone for their good efforts.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has said that we are putting too much down on paper about this issue. It seems to me that the courts now have some difficulty in interpreting the written law because a lot of the laws are not that clear.

Is the member suggesting that our laws be written in a vague and ambiguous fashion? Would it not be preferable to have our laws very clear, very well defined and as specific as possible?

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in 1996 when Bill C-33 was being debated it was claimed that there was absolutely no future intent to bring in same sex benefits. Four years later and here we are.

Is Bill C-23 not just a pit stop along the way to having further amendments made to the entire institution of marriage or to the definition of marriage? Could the member give me his viewpoint on the matter of whether there should be any further amendment to the definition of marriage that he would like to see?