Peter Goldring

[Issue Of Ceremonial Statements Of Service Act, April 22nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to contribute to this debate and commend the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay for bringing this issue to the House.

This is a non-votable matter, illustrating yet once again how it may be preferable that all business in the House be votable. The reason that all House business should be votable is that many important legislative initiatives come from individual members rather than from the government of the day.

We know from recent media commentary on House business that well thought out legislative initiatives may be procedurally scuttled by the government of the day based simply on the fact that it is the private member rather than the government or its ministers who is credited.

If the efforts of individual members are non-votable, what transpires in the House is more of a discussion than a debate with the advantage that there is no need for position entrenchment. We are able despite our differences in political outlook to arrive at a consensus as to a direction that is generally positive and of benefit to Canadians. We may also air our differences without the rancour and partisanship that often accompany political posturing.

In the end the Hansard record acts as a permanent reference to a moment in Canadian history when a particular issue of merit was debated by members. It is up to us to make Canadians aware of the importance of what goes on in this place. Much is discussed that becomes fertile ground for historians 20 and 50 years hence but goes largely unnoticed by the contemporary Canadian populace.

The issues before us today go to the heart of respect for our history, the need to acknowledge service to Canada and the need to counter historical revisionism which denies that war is an imperative to historical progress. I wish we had a vote on today's issue although I would have to oppose it.

Why should the bill introduced by the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay be votable? It is because it raises the issue of ceremonial recognition of veteran and civilian contributions to Canada's war efforts. I would argue that any such recognition should not be generally given but rather limited to those who actually served in war.

In terms of recent developments in the House concerning our merchant navy, even those who served in war had to wait some 50 years before being accorded ceremonial recognition simply because they were not enlisted members of Canada's armed forces during World War II.

It may be said that during the two world wars some Canadians who contributed to Canada's war effort were not ceremonially recognized. In terms of subsequent conflicts it may be said that many Canadians have contributed to our peacekeeping efforts and that not all are ceremonially recognized.

In introducing this legislation last November, the member for Timmins—James Bay described his motivation as having to do with the fact that over the years he had met veterans on numerous occasions who had nothing to show for their participation in world conflicts. They may have been awarded service medals but one does not carry medals on a day to day basis. They may have been given lapel pins but some regard such pins as ostentatious regalia.

As I understand it, what the hon. member proposes is a certificate comparable to a wallet size health card that wounded veterans are now able to show to interested persons, much like a wallet snapshot. In the case of the health card, it becomes a snapshot of past life of valour. For those who were not wounded in conflict there is no comparable snapshot to show someone and say “I was a veteran of this conflict and stand before you today as someone who has personally contributed to the defence of Canada's interest”.

The bill however is flawed. First it is out of date. If the member would take a look at subsection 2(c) he would notice that it refers to the merchant navy under the old legislation. With the passing of Bill C-61 they will now be full status war veterans.

The idea of giving ceremonial recognition to those who contributed to Canada's war efforts is a noble one and worth exploring, but we must not be in too much of a hurry. The bill as it currently stands is too broad and will diminish the contribution of those who gave the most while elevating those who played a less important role.

At this moment the war in Kosovo is expanding in what many would regard as disturbing directions. Some have argued that Kosovo should more properly provide NATO with an opportunity to reassess its purposes and objectives. Yet a few short years ago our soldiers were addressing peacekeeping issues in Bosnia, Rwanda and Somalia. Many of these soldiers are no longer in active service.

It was only in the last parliament that the creation of a medal for service in Somalia was accepted by the House based on a private member's initiative, that of Mr. Jack Frazer, the former hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and the predecessor to current veterans affairs critic of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

Would it not enhance our sense of history and military service to Canada and the world if all such persons were able to carry a wallet size certificate acknowledging their service? In this regard I am pleased to report to the House that subsequent to inquiries by my office of the War Amputations Canada, Mr. Clifford Chadderton, chief executive officer, communicated to me as follows:

The proposal to issue a ceremonial statement recognizing individual contributions to Canada's war effort should have far- reaching effect. Traditionally, veterans have been reluctant to speak about their military service. The issuance of a ceremonial statement of service may well serve as encouragement, so that future generations will know what veterans and other members of the military have done to preserve our freedom. However, as has been noted, the legislation is inclusive, rather than exclusive, through also permitting the ceremonial recognition of civilian contributions to Canada's war and peacekeeping efforts. I feel this is too broad a stroke to make.

Mr. Chadderton supports recognizing veterans and members of the military, but the bill has much more in mind. In section 3 it would allow any person who believes he or she helped Canada in a significant way in a war or armed conflict in which Canada took part or a veteran received recognition.

Does an armed conflict mean journalists covering the Oka crisis can get a statement of service? Under this piece of legislation it indicates that. All it would require is the individuals' belief and they would get the recognition. They do not even have to be on the conflict side of the ocean.

Would members of the House who stood to speak about the Kosovo crisis believe they are worthy of official recognition for their contributions to peacekeeping?

Imagine how insignificant its true meaning would be. Under clause 3(2) any spouse or descendant can apply for a deceased person. Technically somebody could get certificates for their great-grandparents with respect to the war of 1812.

We can easily see there are some flaws. I have some serious questions as an individual. This has helped to formulate my opinion on this. I am sure we could think of other examples that are worth asking about.

One last analogy which came to mind on reviewing this bill is my own family. My elderly father who just passed away operated a factory in Toronto which supplied war materials during World War II. Was that a contribution to the war effort? Should he receive a certificate on my mother making application? Is this the same certificate that somebody would have who was actually engaged in the fighting?

With this in mind, I have to decline my support. I realize and respect the initiative. I believe this would be a much more commendable and worthwhile initiative if it focused on Canada's military. I want to thank the member for his initiative, but unfortunately I have to decline my support.

[Criminal Code, April 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on behalf of my riding of Edmonton East to victims rights.

I wish to compliment the minister on the comments she made in the press conference which clearly gave recognition to the Reform Party for its efforts in pursuing changes to address victims rights. I extend congratulations to my colleagues from Surrey North and Langley—Abbotsford. I also want to thank the minister for her very frank statement that this is not the end of victims rights reform but just the beginning, as we all explore better ways to address the issues and concerns.

It is with this in mind that I wish to speak about serious concerns of victims and potential victims of a recent heinous phenomenon, home invasions. Does this bill address the concerns of these victims? Not nearly enough. It contains only very minor rejigging of procedure. While the bill is desirable, it falls short of real reform to address the concerns of these victims, let alone being a serious deterrent.

It is a sad commentary on our society when police must advise us never to open our doors unless we can see who is knocking and unless we know who that person is. As the police reported in one Canadian home invasion, the victim made that one mistake. He opened the door because he could not see who it was through the peephole.

Anyone at any time can be the victim of a home invasion. The elderly are described as the victims of choice.

There have been at least seven home invasions in Edmonton so far in 1999, resulting in serious injuries. There were only 10 in all of last year. They terrorize the occupants and expose them to the traumatic experience of forced entry with the intent to hold the occupants hostage. People are the target of home invasions. Victims are tortured into giving up property.

In committee the Reform Party, with the support of other opposition parties, asked the federal government to study this growing problem as it affects citizens in what should be their safest place, their home. The hon. member for Winnipeg South said that the idea was silly and not worthy of government concern.

I would fully support any study that would help to ensure the safety of Canadians in their own homes. I would also remind the hon. member for Winnipeg South that one recent home invasion I read about took place in his own riding.

Police say that we can combat home invasions by knowing our neighbours. Since most home invaders are caught due to phone tips, much more is needed now and not later.

The Criminal Code needs to be amended to provide tougher sentences for people involved in home invasions, and even better, to create an entirely new offence of home invasion.

At present most home invaders are charged with breaking and entering. Convicted offenders often do not go to jail. Multiple charges associated with home invasion are plea bargained away or have sentences concurrently served with other charges. In short, no additional punishment is given for home invasion.

Exceptional crimes require exceptional measures. We must raise the price of home invasion to properly reflect the heinous nature of the crime.

A while ago in Edmonton three young offenders broke into the home of victim Barb Danelesko and knifed her to death.

While the seven home invasions this year have yet to result in any deaths, I consider that luck more than anything. Home invasions are typically brutal and intrusive like no other crime, with hostage taking lasting for hours at a time.

There have been at least seven home invasions in Edmonton so far in 1999. In January a 55 year old victim was hospitalized with a gash to his head.

In January, on an Edmonton Sunday afternoon, masked gunmen charged through an unlocked back door of a home looking for drugs. They took money. The police called it home robbery rather than home invasion, although I cannot see the difference, and neither do many of the police officers who say that home invasion should be a separate offence under the Criminal Code in order to track the magnitude of the problem.

In February of this year an Edmonton family was victimized and terrorized, tied up, and their home was ransacked by two gunmen. In February another Edmonton family was held hostage in their home for 16 hours.

In March an Edmonton victim was cut on the hand and head when he struggled with armed robbers committing a home invasion. In that case police are looking for three suspects in their late teens to early twenties.

In March, in Camrose, police arrested two youths, aged 16 and 17, in connection with the home invasion of a 69 year old victim the previous December. In her own home the woman was knocked to the ground, her face bruised by a masked intruder who broke in and stole various items. Robbers do not wear masks if they expect nobody to be home.

In Vancouver police believe that since 1995 two or three people have been responsible for the invasion of 31 homes occupied by the elderly, with 13 or almost half of these home invasions occurring in the last four months. During one of these home invasions a 79 year old victim was murdered.

In Melfort, Saskatchewan an 80 year old victim died subsequent to a home invasion on Christmas Eve, 1998. The man was beaten and tied after answering his front door and lay on his living room floor for 18 hours before being discovered. Because he died two months after the home invasion, police decided that the beating did not contribute to his death. The home invader, 29 years old, remains charged only with robbery and unlawful confinement. That is so even though it is accepted that trauma from any assault, particularly if experienced by an elderly victim, has long lasting affects.

In Merritt, B.C. an 80 year old victim was murdered in 1998 during the course of a home invasion by an 18 year old who is now charged with first degree murder. The victim had his hands and feet bound and was forced to lie on his bed. He was covered by a chest of drawers and his walker.

Near Lac La Biche a mother and daughter found themselves fleeing into the freezing cold after two strangers kicked in the door of their farmhouse at 2.30 in the morning. The daughter suffered from frostbite on her feet.

In Winnipeg this March a 17 year old victim was working at home on his computer. In the early afternoon a stranger knocked and three youths appeared shortly afterwards through the unlocked rear door, cut the telephone cord, tied the youth up, put a knife to his throat and fled with a small amount of money and jewellery.

The B.C. government has offered a reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of home invaders in Vancouver. The reward has recently been increased to $100,000. The Vancouver police department has formed a specialized home invasion police task force which has been given a blank cheque for whatever equipment and resources it requires. In March the attorney general of British Columbia appointed a specialized prosecutor just to deal with home invasions.

Last week there was an unbelievably horrendous home invasion, brutal beating and robbery of a 79 year old decorated World War II veteran, Robert Delaney, and his 78 year old wife Betty. Mr. Delaney is currently hospitalized in Halifax in critical condition as a result of the attack. The victims were attacked in their home, allegedly by 20 year olds and one 14 year old who have been arrested and charged.

The courts must take a hard line on home invasions. Mr. Delaney is a veteran of the famed Black Watch of Montreal and was decorated by the government at war's end for outstanding acts of bravery.

This Halifax home invasion came during the same week that Canada's World War I valour at Vimy Ridge was being commemorated in the House of Commons. Veterans who have fought and died for our freedom are now confronted with violent and lawless youth, the products of years of disrespect for history and country, as their aggressors.

Canada's education system has done an abysmal job of educating youth about the contributions of our war veterans. Canada's veterans ought not be targets of crime but rather be highly regarded and respected. This proud World War II veteran survived the wrath of Nazi Germany but he might not survive the cowardly attack by Canada's young criminals hiding behind antiquated laws and a void of victims rights.

I commend Alberta Justice Minister Jon Havelock who has been an advocate of reforming the process used to pick our supreme court judges. He is right in saying that they should not be picked based on their relationship with the Prime Minister. I will focus on Mr. Havelock's comments on home invasions. He could not have said it better: “Breaking and entering a residential home is not just a property offence”.

He addressed the heinous nature of this crime within the Alberta legislature and has noted that his counterparts in Manitoba and Ontario have done the same. All of them are calling for action from the justice minister. So too am I.

We can only speculate as to why home invasions are becoming more commonplace, but for the criminals there are some comparable advantages. As opposed to an act of assault and robbery in a shopping mall, the criminal has hours instead of minutes to commit the crime. The criminal is concealed from others behind closed doors. The crime's punishment under the present justice system is no different whether it is in the home or in the mall. Commonly sentences are served concurrently, not consecutively.

Home invasions are a particularly loathsome act of cowardliness generally targeting the very young, very old and the weak in a diabolically sinister fashion. Perpetrators first determine if the people are at home, plan an assault to gain entry and take hostage of the victims. Generally physical abuse and torment of the victims are involved along with a robbery and wanton destruction of the home's contents. All of this takes place behind the closed door of somebody's home, their sanctity from the evils of the street.

The institution of victims rights goes hand in hand with criminal justice system reforms. While victims rights are an after the fact privilege long overdue, fully implemented they would impact crime and the prevention of crime. Much more is needed in terms of both victims rights and reform of the justice system.

As we speak news is tragically unfolding in Denver, Colorado, as the United States is facing its legacy of ineffective laws that fail to control violence among others. A school invasion is taking place by armed youths. An armed assault is being made and students are being held hostage. Many deaths have occurred. Hundreds of direct and indirect victims have just been created and the event is still not under control.

Victims rights and criminal reform are not just a Canadian problem but a global problem. Canada could do well by leading the way. This is the challenge of the future. The bill is the beginning of victims rights and deserves to be supported for that.

[Petitions, April 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, these petitioners call upon the Parliament of Canada to enact legislation to accord the merchant navy veterans the specific recognition and benefits that have been denied since world war two.

[Petitions, April 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, few finer examples of Canadian wartime success and magnificent effort can be found than in the annals of the battle of the Atlantic where merchant seamen sailed the enemy infested sea to keep allies supplied until the Atlantic war tide turned in 1943 toward victory.

Now, 50 years hence, merchant navy veterans are still held hostage to unresolved concerns. Merchant navy veterans are not seeking great wealth, only the respect and benefits given their—

[Merchant Navy Veterans, March 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-61 effectively reduces outstanding merchant navy concerns to one. After 55 years, Bill C-61 finally gives merchant navy veterans recognition as war veterans, prisoner of war benefits and recognition for ceremonial days, but it ignores the issue of compensation completely.

The merchant navy was truly comparable to the other three services yet veterans suffer from government imposed poverty. They are not seeking great wealth, only the respect and benefits given their armed forces brethren.

This final issue has existed for over 50 years. Merchant navy veterans have little time left to enjoy restitution for inequalities. They want our government to act now, not later. Our merchant navy veterans' final concerns should not be a new millennium project.

[War Veterans Allowance Act, March 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today I wish to speak of Canada's unknown navy, the navy shamefully not found in many of our schools' history textbooks, the navy Canada's young know not of.

Canada's merchant navy of World War II developed into a force of 12,000 men and women who collectively sailed 25,000 merchant ship voyages. Canada's unsung soldiers moved vital war supplies through enemy lines not by mule, not by truck, but by ship at a horrendous cost.

Young men and women signed up for this service, just as they did for others. Restrictions on enlistment were lesser for the merchant navy, allowing the under-age and under-weight to still serve their country with dignity and pride. Dedication to service came at a high cost to these brave Canadians and Newfoundlanders. The first service causality of the war was with the merchant navy. On September 3, 1939, Hannah Baird of Quebec was killed aboard the unarmed vessel SS Athenia when a German submarine sank it.

To emphasize, as has never been done before in this Chamber, the real price of peace, the real sacrifice to merchant mariners, I would like to make mention of the lost ships. Canada's merchant navy was very small in the early days of the war. At that time it only consisted of 38 ocean-going vessels. By war's end, five years later, that fleet grew to 410 ships. Merchant crews were often unarmed and were forced to sail under rough sea conditions to supply the war effort. The crews did receive some training, but often that was done on the calm and safe inland waters such as the marine engineering instructional school located in Prescott on Lake Ontario.

By later 1940 the merchant fleet had grown from 38 vessels, but losses had already claimed eight vessels. In 1940 seven ships were lost: the Erik Boyle was torpedoed; the Magog was torpedoed and shelled; the Waterloo was bombed by German aircraft; the Thorold was bombed by German aircraft; the Kenordoc was attacked by submarine gunfire; the St. Malo was torpedoed; and the Trevisa was torpedoed.

We must remember that each ship also took the lives of many brave young Canadians to the ocean floor. Death was not often quick and painless. Badly burned, a person would swim until shocked to their death in the cold, oil-topped North Atlantic. Other ships in the convoy would do their best to help, but also had to consider their own safety.

Many veterans say, the worse the weather the better they slept. A calm, clear night with a full moon was cause for insomnia. A calm evening might end with the engine's monotony shattered by an attack that suddenly turned their world from peace into hell.

This was all too familiar in 1941 as 13 more ships were lost: the Maplecourt was torpedoed; the Canadian Cruiser was sunk by a raider; the A.D. Huff was sunk by a raider; the J.B. White was torpedoed; the Canadolite was captured by a raider; the Portadoc was torpedoed; the Europa was bombed by German aircraft; the Collingdoc was mined; the Lady Somers was torpedoed; the Vancouver Island was torpedoed; with the Proteus the loss was unknown; the Nereus was another unknown loss; and the Shinai was seized by the Japanese.

Canadians were not the only ones busy building for all-out war. In 1942 the German U-boat fleet grew from 91 to 212. This made the situation for the merchant ships deteriorate further. The addition of Canadian built, highly manoeuvrable Corvettes to Canadian convoys helped, but losses were still tragically high.

In 1942 alone 31 ships were lost: the Lady Hawkins was torpedoed; the Montrolite was torpedoed; the Empress of Asia was bombed by Japanese aircraft; the Vicolite was torpedoed and shelled; the George L. Torian was torpedoed; the Lennox was torpedoed; the Sarniadoc was torpedoed; the Robert W. Pomeroy was mined; the Vineland was torpedoed and shelled; the James E. Newsom was shelled; the Lady Drake was torpedoed; the Mildred Pauline was shelled; the Mont Louis was torpedoed; the Calgarolite was torpedoed; the Torondoc was torpedoed; the Troisdoc was torpedoed; the Frank B. Baird was shelled; the Liverpool Packet was torpedoed; the Mona Marie was shelled; the Lucille M. was shelled; the Prescodoc was torpedoed; the Princess Marguerite was torpedoed; the Donald Stewart was torpedoed; the Lord Strathcona was torpedoed; the John A. Holloway was torpedoed; the Oakton was torpedoed; the Norfolk was torpedoed; the Carolus was torpedoed; the Bic Island was torpedoed; the Rose Castle was torpedoed; and the Charles J. Kampmann was also torpedoed.

These were tremendous losses taken by the merchant navy with their ships sunk out from under them.

1942 was the year the ongoing battle of the Atlantic continued in earnest. German U-boats were infesting Canada's waters. Several ships were lost in the St. Lawrence River. Concern was at an all time high when even harbour anchorages did not put men's minds to rest. The wrath of the German U-boats was felt from the warm Caribbean seas all the way up to the chilly waters of Atlantic Canada.

As the war went on the Canadian contribution became so much more important. Supplies in continental Europe were quickly being depleted and supply lines into Britain were under constant attack. At one point it is said that a crisis developed when there existed less than 30 days of stocks and Canada was responsible for bringing the situation back to a manageable level.

Canada supplied to the war material as no other nation, save the United States, with 17,000 aircraft, 900,000 land vehicles and a million men and women in uniform. This truly was a war of material supply. Canada contributed raw materials like wood and foodstuffs, but also multitudes of manufactured materials like airplanes, vehicles, tanks, weapons and clothes. All of this material was transported by our merchant navy.

There was no such thing as a typical merchant navy ship. Ships of every description were utilized as the need for supplies across the ocean multiplied. Many of the vessels used had previous lives in industry before the war erupted. Some ships had sailed all the oceans, while others had never left Canadian waters before. Some were lakers recruited for war on the high seas. The same could be said for their crews.

Many seamen had high seas experience, but others had never left Atlantic Canada or even the Great Lakes. There were men who had sailed the west coast and had never dealt with the threat of icebergs before. Despite all of these obstacles, each one of these men was proudly Canadian and knew their lives were not safe on the seas, but they felt a duty to serve king and country.

Just as there was no typical ship, there was no typical seaman. Many of the people in the merchant navy had been working on their respective ships prior to 1939, so they were not the young teenage men we often picture. Many had families, children and grandchildren.

Just as the merchant navy was home to older, seasoned sailors, it was also home to our youngest seamen. With the adrenalin of the war effort, men and boys of all ages wanted to serve Canada overseas. With manpower in desperate need, many questions were not asked.

Just as the young could skirt the rules to enter the merchant navy, so could those with health problems and disabilities. Many barely missed the cutoff for the armed forces, but driven by patriotic pride they joined the war via the merchant navy.

We must remember that not all members of the merchant navy were men. There were also many women who participated. Of the 1,500 who died, eight of them were women.

Many young lives were lost in 1943 when three ships were lost, bringing the total to 54 vessels: The Angelus was shelled; the Jasper Park was torpedoed; and the Fort Athabasca was blown up.

As the war progressed many of the sailors had sustained injuries and many had lost a friend or two, if not their entire crew. Many wanted to return home to comfort grieving parents and some had not seen their wives for several years.

The tension of the battle of the Atlantic was several years old, but by 1943 the tide was turning to victory. However, losses in 1944 were still triple that of the previous year. Mines were taking a greater toll and the threat of enemy aircraft seemed worse, even as the RCAF and RAF began to gain air superiority.

In 1944 nine more ships came to rest at the ocean bottom: the Fort Bellingham was torpedoed; the Fort St. Nicholas was torpedoed; the Watuka was torpedoed; the Fort Missanabie was torpedoed; the Albert C. Field was torpedoed; the Fort Norfolk was mined; the Nipiwan Park was torpedoed; the Cornwallis was torpedoed; and the Fort Maisonneuve was mined.

The final year of the war was 1945, but the merchant navy continued its work long after the war's end, delivering humanitarian aid to the citizens of Germany. They still ferried supplies required for the rebuilding and restocking of Europe.

Merchant navy seamen were encouraged to continue on the ships by our government of the day. While a few were able to remain aboard the ships, most gradually lost their jobs when the ships were sold to other countries.

Merchant navy veterans were not entitled to the benefits of other veterans. They did not have the same access to education. They were disadvantaged as a result.

In early 1945 the merchant navy lost another six ships: the Point Pleasant Park was torpedoed; the Soreldoc was torpedoed; the Taber Park was mined; the Silver Star Park was lost in a collision; the Green Hill Park was blown up; and the Avondale Park was torpedoed.

We must also remember that the ships Watkins F. Nisbett and R.J. Cullen were also lost for unknown reasons on unknown dates. To this day their families are still wondering what happened and when.

The total of the merchant ships lost was 72. If a ship was lost, on average, only 50% of the crew survived.

I will reread some relevant comments I made in the House this past year in Statements by Members:

Canada's merchant navy of World War II is proud of its contribution to a free world and should remain the recipient of the enduring respect of all Canadians.

Canada's veterans of this global conflict are deserving of our undying gratitude for their service to our country.

Canadians must recognize fully that our existence and privileges enjoyed today are due not only to the efforts of our veterans, but also to the efforts of their missing comrades throughout the world.

Few finer examples of Canadian wartime success and magnificent effort can be found than in the annals of the battle of the Atlantic where merchant seamen sailed the enemy infested sea in keeping Allies supplied in World War II.

Many dedicated individuals have worked to have the merchant navy's concerns addressed. Their work will be remembered as part of the lengthy battle for equality.

I take a moment to pay a personal tribute to a man who has the utmost respect of all veterans and members on both sides of the House. Mr. Gordon Olmstead was forced to step back from the frontlines of this battle due to his health but he remains a respected voice among his peers. He was a prisoner of war and was instrumental in having this legislation drafted. No better tribute could be made than to call this bill the Gordon Olmstead act. I am pleased we can have this legislation passed without unreasonable delay.

Last year I was able to get the agreement of all merchant navy groups on these four points of outstanding concern: to be recognized as war veterans, to receive prisoner of war benefits, to receive compensation for years of denial of equality, and to receive recognition on ceremonial days. This legislation will address three of these four points and for this I am very thankful.

The fourth point will be addressed in committee due to a motion which I successfully had all parties support in committee. For the first time we will examine the issue of merchant navy compensation claims. The committee is committed to deliver a report with corrective recommendations to the House before the summer recess. Finally we will be able to bring closure to this unfortunate chapter in Canadian history. For the first time a formal committee will study the compensation aspect of the years of denial of equality.

I look forward to bringing closure to this long outstanding issue this year. Recompense is the final concern which begs for settlement.

[Petitions, March 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I wish today to present to the House five petitions by hundreds of Canadians who are concerned about merchant navy veterans.

Their concerns can be basically summarized as seeking war veteran status, prisoner of war benefits, recompense for years of denial of equality, and ceremonial day recognition.

I submit these petitions today on behalf of merchant navy veterans and their concerns.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, March 11th, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-486, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Edmonton East.

Mr. Speaker, I introduce this bill on behalf of an overwhelming number of my constituents who truly believe a change like this is appropriate. Edmonton Centre-East would properly describe this riding in full whereas at the present time the centre of the city of Edmonton to 109th Street is not described by the title of Edmonton East alone. The bill has overwhelming support and I am presenting it for that reason.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[War Veterans Allowance Act, February 12th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-61, an act to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act and related legislation.

This is an omnibus bill that, when coupled with separate assumed undertakings by the government to right past wrongs, caused elderly merchant navy veterans to end their hunger strike on the steps of Parliament Hill last fall.

As with much omnibus legislation, there are several separate legislative initiatives, so that voting against the legislation means that one could be seen to be voting against certain provisions that actually improve matters for veterans, including merchant navy veterans. In the alternative, one could vote against the legislation based on what is not included in it. There is much in this legislation that does little to improve the the circumstances of merchant navy veterans in terms of their well known grievances.

Voting against legislation based on what is not there is not particularly constructive in my view. Voting against legislation because all the provisions are not as one might wish is also not particularly constructive. On the other hand, the parliamentary practice of introducing omnibus legislation is not a particularly fair or honest way of addressing primary grievances.

I want the record to show that while I favour specifics of the bill I do not believe that its format allows for a debate on this substantial issue at hand, that of compensation to our merchant navy veterans for past government wrongs, for past avoidance of responsibilities.

To correct this I will propose at committee that a special subcommittee be formed to examine compensation claims for years of denial of equality from the war to this date. I am expecting our government's wholehearted co-operation and participation in this special subcommittee.

In this bill there are two provisions that should meet with general approval in the House. Both relate to the lifetime effects of war, effects along with memories that are rarely erased. By way of amendment to the Pension Act former prisoners of war may now apply for special allowances even though they are not in receipt of a disability pension. An allowance of this nature could be used to provide for an attendant. This amendment would be welcomed in such cases where a prisoner of war never claimed a disability pension but now finds there is need for assistance. By this amendment there appears to be a general recognition that experiences as a prisoner of war will always have an effect on the enjoyment of later life even if no specific disability can be traced to the prisoner of war experiences.

In similar fashion spouses of deceased veterans classified as partially disabled at the time of death will now be able to seek a re-evaluation of the disability status of the departed veteran in order to receive increased survivor benefits. By this amendment it is recognized that any war related disability may become progressively more incapacitating even though the veteran chooses not to inform veterans affairs as to his deteriorated state.

Veterans have demonstrated time and time again that they are proud people, proud of their service to the country and proud of their independence. Veterans do not readily stand in the queue for a government cheque. By this amendment it is recognized that such independence of the veteran, while admirable, should not result in financial prejudice to a veteran's spouse whose post-war life was also affected by war related disabilities.

For example, a veteran may have suffered permanent hearing loss as a result of bombing missions over Europe. The veteran was assessed as partially disabled. However, his balance became progressively worse due to the effects of diminished hearing. At some point the veteran ceased to work due to difficulties with walking and balance. What this amendment does is recognize that once again a war related injury may have lasting and progressively more serious effects on the well-being of any veteran. The effects of war are again recognized as lifelong.

Many arguments have been made to deny merchant navy veterans the benefits they have claimed. I will canvass the principal claims. It has not been easy to obtain agreement as to these four points given the various factions within the merchant navy veterans organizations, although I did succeed in obtaining agreements from all parties. There are four main demands of all groups representing the various factions: to be recognized as war veterans, to receive prisoner of war benefits, to receive compensation for years of denial of equality, and to receive recognition on ceremonial days.

Bill C-61 addresses recognition of war veterans status. Merchant navy veterans are war veterans for all purposes and in all respects. Therefore formal recognition of merchant navy veterans on ceremonial days, in particular on Remembrance Day, should now occur as a matter of course. Equivalency of prisoner of war benefits is also implicitly addressed.

The key issues not addressed in Bill C-61 is compensation to our merchant navy veterans for years of denial of equality. As with prisoner of war benefits, general benefits available to all veterans have been available to merchant navy veterans since legislative amendments in 1992. The fact that they may or may not be treated equally now is not the issue. The issue not addressed in this legislation and also not addressed in the 1992 legislation is retroactive compensation, to acknowledge that merchant navy veterans despite their crucial and valorous service in war were not placed on the same benefit footing as other returning veterans after the war.

An inequality of post-war opportunity leads to an inequality of post-war outcomes. In short, the post-war lives of our merchant navy veterans were short changed by the government.

The valour and sacrifice of our merchant navy veterans are well known. They faced death more than any other Canadian fighting force with one in seven merchant mariners being killed in World War II. This horrendous statistic is evidenced by the fact that, until corrected recently by veterans affairs, the commonly held wisdom was that the death rate was one in eight, which is equally horrendous.

Members of our Canadian merchant navy were vital suppliers to the war effort. It is true that merchant mariners were not subject to the same military discipline as those in the armed forces. It is also true they were paid marginally more than those in the armed forces. However, their service to Canada's war effort was very different from those who contributed to the war effort in factories and offices but who did not face death daily. Their service to Canada's war effort was also very different from those currently in receipt of veterans pensions who were members of the armed forces but who never went overseas.

The reason we view members of the merchant navy as war veterans is that the nature and dangers of their service were clearly no different from anyone else on the front lines. Given the paltry difference in salary between those in the armed forces and those in the merchant navy, it cannot be said that merchant navy veterans risked their lives for the money. Like others actively serving in the war, they risked their lives for their country and to preserve its freedoms. At minimum, they could be viewed as resistance fighters for Canada and certainly should be treated no differently from allied resistance fighters in other countries who our political leaders have been so quick to compensate with Canadian taxpayer resources.

Compensating our merchant navy veterans for years of wrongful denial of equality is both a symbolic and tangible means by which we can thank fellow Canadians for their efforts in preserving the freedoms we enjoy today.

Consider that 12,000 men and women served in the merchant navy in World War II. Many were older than the average age of Canadians in the armed forces since many of these merchant mariners had also served Canada during World War I. Members of our merchant navy, in addition to playing a vital role in the transportation of supplies in support of the war effort in Europe, also defended Canada's shores during the battle of the Atlantic.

In my capacity as opposition critic for veterans affairs, I participated last year in ceremonies commemorating the 55th anniversary of the battle of the Atlantic. The battle of the Atlantic was the only battle of World War II that was waged close to Canada's shores. German submarines reached as far as the shores of Halifax and the Gulf of the St. Lawrence. Armed merchant navy carriers contributed significantly to turning the tide as the battle of the Atlantic was being won by the allies in 1943.

Perhaps politicians have chosen to ignore the plight of merchant navy veterans due to the comparative smallness of their numbers. The merchant navy was comprised of no more than 12,000 seafarers. Of the 12,000 who served in the merchant navy, 1,629 lost their lives in World War II, 8 of whom were women. This represents over 13% of the service or approximately 1 in 7.

Members of the merchant navy were not a world apart from those in the armed forces. It should be remembered that at the outbreak of World War II, the Royal Canadian Navy took control of all shipping. It should also be remembered that all who served in the merchant navy were volunteers. None were compelled to sail but most did. Once signed on, merchant navy seamen were subject to sail or jail orders just as the navy.

What was denied to the merchant navy veterans at war's end, such that they did not have the equality of post-war opportunity available to other veterans? The benefits denied are not minor and clearly their absence would have lifetime impacts. Merchant navy veterans received no financial assistance to attend university as did other war veterans. Many of the leaders in professions during the 1960s to the present are or were veterans who received such assistance.

Merchant navy veterans were not accorded priority in public service employment as were other returning veterans. After the war the employment of the public service offered the benefit of economic stability and the opportunity to re-establish one's life in an orderly fashion. It was a particularly important benefit remembered by those whose youth occurred during the great depression when employment in the public service was also often the only gainful employment available. The denial of this benefit to the merchant navy veterans had lifetime effects.

The third benefit denied to the merchant navy veterans was land or its cash equivalent. Returning veterans were provided with an opportunity to acquire housing under the Veterans Land Act as well as income support. The opportunity to acquire housing coupled with financial assistance to attend university, income support and priority in public service employment meant that many veterans could overcome the scars of war and look forward to stable family lives and careers. None of this was available to merchant navy veterans except in limited circumstances where such veterans were disabled.

That this wrong has not been addressed for nearly 55 years after the end of World War II is a national disgrace which will hopefully not continue. It is true that as of 1992 merchant navy veterans have essentially been “on equal footing” with other veterans in terms of benefits. Now with Bill C-61 they will be on equal footing under the same legislation and are therefore no longer symbolically separate but equal.

This still does not address the issue that the lives and families of every one of our merchant navy veterans have been scarred by a government imposed inequality of post-war opportunity.

There are several reasons given for this discriminatory treatment at war's end. Some argue that it was because there were many socialists in the merchant navy and it was believed by the government of the day that any support accorded merchant navy veterans would strengthen socialistic and pro-union sentiments. That these beliefs continued into the cold war of the fifties is understandable given the tenor of the times, though it does not make them right.

To this day I can advise the House that organizations representing merchant navy veterans represent a broad political spectrum that results from time to time in a degree of fractious discord. The fact that to this day merchant navy veterans have difficulty speaking consistently with one voice should not be a matter to be taken advantage of politically.

On occasion and quite recently I have been asked to detail my goals with respect to my current role as official opposition critic of veterans affairs. As has been publicly reported, I stated that one dimension of this portfolio, the same portfolio addressed by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, is that many of the files are not new. Many of these issues are not new. Some of these issues have been going on for 50 or 55 years, far too long.

For reasons best left to historians many of these issues that could have been addressed by governments 20 and 30 years ago were not addressed, let alone resolved. I support the bill as one small step toward resolving the merchant navy concerns and I encourage the government to do more.

[National Defence, February 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Health Canada did not do tests. It said to take the vaccine at our own risk.

General Kinsman, chief of defence air staff, said he would not have given the vaccine to soldiers if they knew it had expired.

Why did the minister withhold this information from his generals?