# Seeking a medal for a navy mom



## Stoker (11 Jun 2008)

Seeking a medal for a navy mom Published Wednesday June 11th, 2008
OTTAWA - The mother of the Canadian navy officer who died after a fire
on the submarine HMCS Chicoutimi in 2004 would like to receive the
Memorial Cross.

Saint John Liberal MP Paul Zed also thinks Deborah Sullivan deserves the
medal awarded since 1919 to the mothers and widows of members of
Canada's armed forces who have died on active duty.

It's the medal generations of Canadians who have not seen war have seen
on the stoic Silver Cross mothers who lay wreaths during Remembrance Day
ceremonies.

But Sullivan isn't eligible.

Her son Lieut. Christopher Saunders, a combat engineer, died on a
mission that seemed routine - the maiden voyage from Scotland to Halifax
of a diesel-electric submarine, one of four Canada had bought from the
United Kingdom.

But Saunders was not in a "special duty area," so his widow and his
mother did not qualify to receive medals honouring his sacrifice.

Sullivan asked Zed for help and on Tuesday, Zed introduced a motion in
the House of Commons to award the medals to all mothers and widows of
soldiers who died on active duty regardless of location since Sept. 3,
1945, the formal end of the Second World War.

"Deborah Sullivan will always be Chris's mom, and she deserves to have
this medal in honour of his brave service to Canada," Zed said in the
House of Commons.

He has written all MPs seeking their support.

"We don't know if we can solve this, but this begins the journey to
solve it," said Zed, who had presented Sullivan in 2004 with the flag
that flew at half-staff from the Peace Tower in honour of her son's
sacrifice.

Sullivan recalled how senior representatives of the military and the
government of Canada all praised her son for his devotion to duty in
public ceremonies and in private letters of condolence after his death.

"It was made to be a very big deal for our country but now they're
telling me he doesn't qualify for the medal," she said.

She does not understand why the rules about the medal should exclude her
and other wives and widows.

"He died in the service of his country while on active duty and I
believe that by choosing certain people who qualify and others who
aren't is discriminatory toward a lot of families," she said.

Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson said the government is always
willing to look at any proposal recognizing the sacrifices of members of
the Armed Forces and their families.

"That's what we had in mind when we brought in the changes we did in
2006 to the Memorial Cross," said Thompson.

The changes in 2006 allowed up to three recipients to be eligible if
they had been previously named by the member of the Armed Forces who
dies, no matter where the death occurred.

Thompson said he wondered why Zed would pick the end of the Second World
War rather than 1919, which is when the medal was struck. He said that's
one among many aspects of Zed's motion that would have to be debated in
the Commons.

Saunders, 32, of Quispamsis, left a wife and two young sons.

Sullivan, who has several relatives who served in the military, said she
assumed after her son's death that she'd eventually be contacted by the
government and awarded the medal.

After a long time with no word from the government Saunders' widow Gwen
began making inquiries, only to learn they weren't eligible.

Sullivan wasn't the only person to expect she'd receive the medal after
her son's high-profile sacrifice.

She recalls being asked to be Silver Cross mother at a Remembrance Day
ceremony in Saint John, but "I was quite embarrassed and upset to have
to inform this lady that I was not a Silver Cross mother."


----------



## jzaidi1 (11 Jun 2008)

Sad indeed,

I knew Chris - not well, mind you but we had mutual friends.  I grew up in Saint John (he was 1 year older than I).  I hope he/his family are awarded a medal.

J


----------



## geo (11 Jun 2008)

Under the old rules, the lady would not have been entitled to the medal - as his would have gone to his wife...
Now that there are a max of 3.... not a problem...... should the MPs respond kindly to the motion.


----------



## Michael OLeary (11 Jun 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Under the old rules, the lady would not have been entitled to the medal - as his would have gone to his wife...
> Now that there are a max of 3.... not a problem...... should the MPs respond kindly to the motion.



Actually, under the old rules, up to two Memorial Crosses were issued.

If the soldier was married, one went to his wife.
If his mother survived him, she received one also.

But, for a single man whose mother had pre-deceased him, none were issued.




> Memorial Crosses
> 
> The Memorial Cross (more often referred to as the Silver Cross) was first instituted by Order-in-Council 2374, dated December 1, 1919. It was awarded to mothers and widows (next of kin) of Canadian soldiers who died on active duty or whose death was consequently attributed to such duty.
> 
> The crosses were sent automatically to mothers and wives who qualified, and can be worn by the recipients anytime, even though they were not themselves veterans. The cross is engraved with the name and service number of the son or husband.


----------



## geo (11 Jun 2008)

Och!
I stand corrected


----------



## armyvern (11 Jun 2008)

And, under the new rules, the Memorial Cross can be presented to *up to three * recipients who are named *by the soldier* on the Memorial Cross form which is held on his/her file.

In my case, my mom (who I love dearly) isn't listed as one of the three - she'd receive none. That's kind of wierd I guess ... but I have kids - they're on there. I should probably let my mother know that I guess ... just so she isn't waiting as this mother has been should something happen to me on tour.

Situations such as this certainly make you think. I'll be following it with interest.


----------



## Harley Sailor (11 Jun 2008)

Stoker said:
			
		

> Thompson said he wondered why Zed would pick the end of the Second World
> War rather than 1919, which is when the medal was struck. He said that's
> one among many aspects of Zed's motion that would have to be debated in
> the Commons.



That would save having to give out metals to all the mothers of people who died in the war would it not.


----------



## Michael OLeary (11 Jun 2008)

Harley Sailor said:
			
		

> That would save having to give out metals to all the mothers of people who died in the war would it not.



Memorial Crosses were given to widows and mothers during the Second World War and the Korean War.

http://www.vac.gc.ca/general/sub.cfm?source=feature/week2001/natnews/silvcross


----------



## TrexLink (12 Jun 2008)

First of all, I would be interested in knowing what a sapper was doing on board one of our subs in the North Atlantic.  A good example of media ignorance (not stupidity or bias, but ignorance of their basic topic).

The Cross was essentially intended to acknowledge the loss of those dying in war.  While I have the greatest sympathy for his survivors, the gentleman died in an accident while on routine voyage. If a Cross is awarded for this, would we then be expected to award a Cross if a stoker breaks his neck falling down a ladder in harbour? 

If that, then how about the case of an infantryman shot during a live fire exercise as part of workup training for an operational tour?

If that is allowed, how about a reserve MSE Op who is killed when his LSVW rolls during an normal weekend exercise in Meaford?

If that is allowed, would we expect to award Crosses to the survivors of a staff officer who dies of a heart attack sitting at his desk at 101 Col By?

If that goes, how about a member who wraps his car around a bridge abutment on the way home from work?

If that works, would a Cross be awarded after a member dies after a fight in a strip bar whilst on leave?


OK, it gets progressively sillier, I know - understand I am not trying to trivialize either the loss or the Cross.  My point is that while the grief is very real and the loss most regrettable, at what point do you draw the line? It's a slippery slope.  Should the Memorial Cross be awarded to the survivors of each and every member who dies while in the CF?  That would completely dilute the intent of the Cross.


----------



## geo (12 Jun 2008)

Texlink.... the Officer was not a Sapper.... he was an combat systems officer (I think) .... definitively a "black suit".  Blame the media for messing up the military occupations.


----------



## TrexLink (12 Jun 2008)

Geo - Thanks, I do know the difference (and I think you know where I stand WRT to sappers).  I was trying to point out that, in reporting our late comrade as "a combat engineer", the reporter had either not bothered to check out his/her/it's facts or else could not transcribe three words without error.  It makes one question the accuracy of anything else one reads in the media (and elsewhere).  _Chimo!_


----------



## big_castor (12 Jun 2008)

TrexLink said:
			
		

> The Cross was essentially intended to acknowledge the loss of those dying in war.  While I have the greatest sympathy for his survivors, the gentleman died in an accident while on routine voyage. If a Cross is awarded for this, would we then be expected to award a Cross if a stoker breaks his neck falling down a ladder in harbour?
> 
> If that, then how about the case of an infantryman shot during a live fire exercise as part of workup training for an operational tour?



Isn't that the intent of the new elligibilty rules ? :



			
				http://www.forces.gc.ca/dhh/honours_awards/chart/engraph/chart_display_e.asp?cat=3&ref=MC&submit1=Go said:
			
		

> *For deaths that occur before 1 January * 2007.
> 
> The Memorial Cross is granted to the mother (if living) and/or the widow (if legally married or common law) of a CF member that either:
> dies in a Special Duty Area (SDA);
> ...



The DND press release even cites Lt(N) Saunders death has a reason for the change :



			
				http://www.dnd.ca/site/Newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2158 said:
			
		

> Canadian society, the make-up of the family, and the nature of military service have evolved considerably in the past 90 years. The existing criteria for the Cross—limiting eligibility to deaths in Special Duty Areas (SDAs), and the recipients to the mother and widow only—are no longer in keeping with modern needs. _Recent cases such as the deaths of Lieutenant (Navy) Chris Saunders onboard HMCS Chicoutimi (outside of an SDA) _ and Captain Nichola Goddard, the first Canadian woman to die in combat, illustrate the need to modernize eligibility criteria.


----------



## TrexLink (12 Jun 2008)

I stand corrected.


----------



## sandyson (13 Jun 2008)

Trexlink has the point.  The solution could be found in allowing "Ministerial discretion" to play a role.  In the background could be the committee--I'm sure there must be one somewhere, making the recommendation.  Of course I must also note that the Forces' CWO could or does play a role.


----------



## armyvern (14 Jun 2008)

sandyson said:
			
		

> Trexlink has the point.  The solution could be found in allowing "Ministerial discretion" to play a role.  In the background could be the committee--I'm sure there must be one somewhere, making the recommendation.  Of course I must also note that the Forces' CWO could or does play a role.



I think the new eligibility rules are quite clear:

DHH - Memorial Cross


> The Memorial Cross is granted to the mother (if living) and/or the widow (if legally married or common law) of a CF member that either:
> dies in a Special Duty Area (SDA);
> dies while proceeding to or returning from a SDA; or
> dies from causes directly attributable to service in a SDA.
> ...



"Ministerial Discretion" has the possibility to allow for Lt(N) Saunders' mother to be presented with the Memorial Cross as his death pre-dated the 31 Dec 2006 dates where the "SDA" requirement was officially removed from the criterion. 

But, how far back would that go? Certainly mothers, wifes, husbands of other Service Members killed while in the performance of their duties outside of SDAs prior to that date would then have to be treated in the very same manner by having those members' deaths treated with the same Ministerial Discretion no? That would be the only proper, fair and just thing to do. Those members meant just as much to their own families, and their service was just as important.

And, if that's the case, you may as well just remove the effective date for non-SDA areas from the list. If all members who've died as "the result of an injury or disease related to military service, regardless of location" are now eligible to have Memorial Crosses presented at the Minister's Discretion ... then we are back to square one and one would have to review the files for each and every person who has died in that line of service outside of SDAs all the way back to the Memorial Cross' original inception date. If you don't do that -- you would be treating those left out, and their own survivors, as "lesser".


----------



## sandyson (17 Jun 2008)

Army Vern.  You are correct of course.  However, "discretion" can reach back or forward as far as is considered reasonable by the person exercising the authority.  Discretionary authority is a means for bureaucracy--in the best sense of the word, to evolve or adapt.  In this case the answer may be to grant the medal, but on a broader basis and considering your contribution, the system may suggest an alternative.  E.g. Next-of-kin of a reservist killed on weekend training are not eligible for recognition, yet the reservist volunteered and the loss is no less for the family, than a loss in Afghanistan.  Perhaps an alternative recognition would be suggested.  Regulations must be specific, yet the service must be _reasonable_. Discretion is a doorway not only to a specific case, but to the encompassing issue.


----------



## armyvern (18 Jun 2008)

sandyson said:
			
		

> Army Vern.  You are correct of course.  However, "discretion" can reach back or forward as far as is considered reasonable by the person exercising the authority.  Discretionary authority is a means for bureaucracy--in the best sense of the word, to evolve or adapt.  In this case the answer may be to grant the medal, but on a broader basis and considering your contribution, the system may suggest an alternative.  E.g. Next-of-kin of a reservist killed on weekend training are not eligible for recognition, yet the reservist volunteered and the loss is no less for the family, than a loss in Afghanistan.  Perhaps an alternative recognition would be suggested.  Regulations must be specific, yet the service must be _reasonable_. Discretion is a doorway not only to a specific case, but to the encompassing issue.



Here's where you and I will have to agree to disagree.

Even a reservist training for a weekend ... is doing so with the intent of that training being "Defence of Canadian Sovereignty". 

In this case, to quote you: "discretion can reach back or forward as far as is considered reasonable by the person exercising the authority" ... discretion was exercised by those with authority to do so ... and they have enacted the new regulatory policy with an effective date "after 31 December 2006" for members outside of SDAs because they found that a "reasonable" date for whatever reason. That was the date they chose to reach back to. If they further choose to reach back again ... then the only fair thing to do each treat each as equals. What's good for anyone's mother & loved ones is good for them ALL regardless of component, trade etc -- as they have ALL fallen as volunteers while doing their duty (in whatever capacity) and that performance of duty has resulted in their death while serving this nation. Not one of them is worth more than the other, and not one of them is worth less. To pick and choose a select few from before the enactment date and deem them "different" from all others who died as a direct result of performing those duties outside of SDAs pre 31 Dec 06 -- is a DISCRIMINATORY act; not a discretionary act.


----------



## sandyson (18 Jun 2008)

Let me ponder a coherent response.


----------



## armyvern (18 Jun 2008)

sandyson said:
			
		

> Let me ponder a coherent response.



Heck, it's only my opinion you know!!  

I'm no high priced lawyer/politician/debater/policy guru ...

I'm just saying ... what makes sense to me.


----------



## sandyson (22 Jun 2008)

I gave your opinion some thought as I was cutting the lawn the other day.  ... Having returned from the hospital, here is the result.
My experience with policy is that the good ones satisfy an intent and apply to most situations. None however, manage to apply to all. Discretion must be resorted to for the remainder. Whether or not the Navy mom gets the silver cross is dependent not only on the policy but equally upon the intent of the policy. I have not read the latter, but would guess that the incentive was to make death more acceptable to the population as a whole.  This guess is consistent with Napoleon's first use of medals and ribbons. Bragging rights! Governments must convert the people's loss to their advantage or considerable opposition to their conflict will result. The silver cross idea was ingenious.  This approach is Machiavellian, but his book The Prince was not evil, just ruthlessly practical.  The Navy mom deserves the cross because her loss can be reasonably recognized and satisfy significant public dissatisfaction—the intent.  Should the loss of reservist “blogins” wherein the circumstances of death are outside the parameters of the current policy, be equally recognized?  Yes--if the squeak is loud enough i.e. if enough people find grievance in the situation. Perhaps the policy date is not fair, but time is physically infinite--not humanly so. Cut off dates will be set, by policy or by circumstance. Here is my example of the latter.  A Vietnam veteran and I were in a weight room when the television monitor showed O Winfrey welcoming 3 brothers and Iraq veterans back home--a moving experience.  The marine and I both commented at how different was the situation when the Vietnam veterans returned. Even the return of dead Canadian servicemen from Cyprus or Yugo was done as quietly as possible. The contrast in recognition today is striking but time prevents compensation.
The conclusion from my experience is therefore:  policy can provide some recognition.  For the the shortcomings I must trust leadership, which I grant you may becoming difficult in these cynical times.


----------



## Stoker (17 Jan 2009)

Some good news


Recognition Mother of victim of submarine fire welcomes change in government
policy

MARY-ELLEN SAUNDERS
TELEGRAPH-JOURNAL 

QUISPAMSIS - The mother of the Canadian navy officer who died in a submarine
fire in 2004 received a phone call Thursday she has been waiting to get for
five years.

Lieut. Christopher Saunders of Quispamsis died in a submarine fire in 2004. 

Deborah Sullivan learned she will receive the Memorial Cross to honour the
sacrifice made by her son, Lieut. Christopher Saunders, 32, of Quispamsis,
who died on the HMCS Chicoutimi during the submarine's maiden voyage from
Scotland to Halifax.

"I started crying," Sullivan said of the moment when she heard the news.

"I was very relieved and very pleased. It means more to me than I can put
into words. To me, it's a symbol of the sacrifice my son made to the
country. It's a legacy that will be left behind to his family and his
children. It's something they can look back upon with pride."

Since 1919, the Memorial Cross has been awarded to the mothers and widows of
members of Canada's armed forces who have died on active duty.

Until Thursday, Saunders' family did not qualify for the silver medal
because he was not in a "special duty area" at the time of his death.

At the time Saunders died on duty, the Memorial Cross was only awarded to
the families of those who served and died in overseas missions.

On Thursday, the Department of National Defence announced it had made
revisions of the Memorial Cross regulations to include the families of all
service-related deaths that happened after Oct. 6, 2001, regardless of where
they occurred.

"It's a bittersweet end to a long struggle to have these changes made,"
Sullivan said.

Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson cited Sullivan's story, and other
similar stories from across the country, as the reason the government made
the changes.

"I do know the Memorial Cross means so much to these families. The
government is sensitive to these issues and we responded to a real need to
make changes, changes we could argue could have be made a long time ago. And
it will truly mean a lot to these families and this family in particular,"
Thompson said.

"This has nothing to do with parties. It is all about doing the right thing
for the men and women who really deserve our praise and thank-yous every day
for the work they do for Canada."

Sullivan said after her son died, she expected to receive the medal. After a
year, she said she contacted the government and found out she and her son's
widow did not qualify.

"I thought it was unfair because this is a medal given for the service of
these young men and women," Sullivan said. "My son died serving his country,
it may not have been in a war zone, but he died."

Sullivan asked Paul Zed, Saint John MP at the time, for help.

Zed took the issue to the House of Commons in a motion that asked the
government to award the medals to all mother and widows of soldier who died
on active duty regardless of location.

Zed, who is no longer in politics, said the news is wonderful.

"It's just one of those cases as an MP you work on because you believe the
system was wrong and you are always hopeful common sense will prevail," Zed
said.

"I had always hoped people would put partisan politics aside and do the
right thing and clearly the memory of her son is honoured today by this
decision."

Zed said during his fight for this change he brought it up in the House of
Commons several times and had members of all political parties and military
generals tell him they agreed with his position.

"There should not be two different classes of citizens who die, one in the
fevers of war and one in a tragic accident carrying out their duties," Zed
said.

"Obviously the government recognized there shouldn't be two different
classes. "| I'm very excited for Deborah and for her family and for
Christopher's boys, who will know that their father truly is a New Brunswick
and Canadian hero."

Dean Mercer, a best friend of Saunders, said every time he looks at a
picture or thinks about his friend, he misses him.

He said Saunders was an easy-going guy who always had a smile on his face,
was always there if anyone needed anything and who died doing what he loved.

Mercer said the death of his young friend reminds him to live every day with
meaning and to always smile and be positive because that is what Saunders
would have wanted.

"This is fantastic news. The family has gone through a tremendous amount,"
Mercer said.

"This will give them peace of mind. You can never have closure but at least
they will have something to remember him by and know the government and the
military are thinking of him as well."

Sullivan said she thinks her son would be very thankful his family is being
given something that can be left to his children so they can look back and
understand the sacrifice that was made


----------



## geo (17 Jan 2009)

It's nice to see that this family can get closure.

That having been said, I see a problem with regulations to include the families of all
service-related deaths that happened after Oct. 6, 2001, regardless of where
they occurred...
- That means that the mother of Cpl Bloggins the trucker who died after rolling his 10 ton in Wainwright (due to reckless speed) will qualify for the Memorial cross.
- That means that the wife of MWO Smith the engineer who died of a coronary while doing collective PT with his Squadron will qualify for the Memorial cross.

Will these Memorial cross mothers / wives be miffed if they are passed-by & not invited to be the representative mother in Ottawa on November 11th ?


----------



## mariomike (17 Jan 2009)

"injury or disease related to military service, regardless of location."

Sounds like the definition for Line of Duty Death. LODD.
Heart and lung failure can be LODD. Also cancer. 
Sometimes the definition of what an LODD is, and what it is not, is dependent upon who you ask.


----------



## Harley Sailor (19 Jan 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> It's nice to see that this family can get closure.
> 
> That having been said, I see a problem with regulations to include the families of all
> service-related deaths that happened after Oct. 6, 2001, regardless of where
> ...



So, let me get this right ; it's ok that my mother gets a medal when I die from a roll over in Afghanistan, but not if I die from a roll over in Wainwright getting ready to go to Afghanistan.  Interesting.


----------



## geo (19 Jan 2009)

If you are in Wainright while preparing to go to Afghanistan you are considered to already be there.  If you are part of the camp infrastructure & drive your truck out into the training area (on a task), and you roll your truck..... that's what I have a problem wrapping my mind around.


----------



## Harley Sailor (19 Jan 2009)

I just have a problem seeing past, either way you rolled a truck by accident.  Why should one mother get a medal and the other not, just because her son got picked to go to a war zone.  I can see if a road side bomb caused the roll over, but that was not Always the case.  Maybe they should be looking at how they died and not so much where.


----------



## CountDC (19 Jan 2009)

Maybe they could make a slight change such as a different colour ribbon or remove the crown/maple leaves if the death was outside a SDA.


----------



## Harley Sailor (19 Jan 2009)

CountDC said:
			
		

> Maybe they could make a slight change such as a different colour ribbon or remove the crown/maple leaves if the death was outside a SDA.



I agree, except you are still talking area.  If you have an accident does it really matter if it was in a SDA or not?  I really do like the two different ribbons idea.


----------



## CountDC (19 Jan 2009)

Harley Sailor said:
			
		

> I agree, except you are still talking area.  If you have an accident does it really matter if it was in a SDA or not?  I really do like the two different ribbons idea.



To me no but playing devil I could see some argument for it.  SDA has an inherent higher risk so you could argue that the accident was partially caused by the increased stress  of the higher risk.   Mind you it seems to me that it would be a lot easier to admin based on location instead of what they are doing - 2 criteria to choose from instead of a bunch of possible scenarios.


----------



## Journeyman (19 Jan 2009)

Harley Sailor said:
			
		

> * If you have an accident does it really matter if it was in a SDA or not?*



Yes.

If you believe a commemorative medal is justified for an MSE Op driving his truck into a wall in Wainwright, then why not for some taxi driver in Toronto, or a postal worker who gets run over in Ottawa?

If it's not attributable to a military operation, it's no different than the death of any other person. Sad for the spouse/parent, but not remotely worthy of a medal.


----------



## CountDC (19 Jan 2009)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Yes.
> 
> If you believe a commemorative medal is justified for an MSE Op driving his truck into a wall in Wainwright, then why not for some taxi driver in Toronto, or a postal worker who gets run over in Ottawa?
> 
> If it's not attributable to a military operation, it's no different than the death of any other person. Sad for the spouse/parent, but not remotely worthy of a medal.



the rule makers and regulations disagree with you - the MSE OPs mother and wife can get the cross and I for one support that ruling - the death was still attributable to military service. I just think there should be some way to distinguish between this case and the lad that gets taken out by a mine in Afghan.


----------



## Journeyman (19 Jan 2009)

CountDC said:
			
		

> *the rule makers and regulations disagree with you ....*


Thank you for expressing the obvious. 

However, much like you saying you'd like to see this waste of defence budget now come in multiple colours, I was merely expressing the opinion that I disagreed with it being awarded for any non-operational deaths.


----------



## Stoker (19 Jan 2009)

Let the government award the medal to whomever. If it provides some small comfort to a family so be it. It doesn't matter that a person gets washed over the side off the coast of Halifax or gets killed by a IED overseas is taking away anything from that person's family or making their sacrifices any less.


----------



## rampage800 (19 Jan 2009)

Stoker

Well said !


----------



## mariomike (19 Jan 2009)

"award the medals to all mothers and widows of soldiers who died on active duty regardless of location"

"Active Duty" or "Active Service" means on the job full-time.
A member who dropped dead in front of their living room TV would be treated the same as a KIA by this definition.  Presumably they mean "on duty". Even so, that's hardly the same as being KIA in a war.


----------



## geo (19 Jan 2009)

> I just think there should be some way to distinguish between this case and the lad that gets taken out by a mine in Afghan.


 
Well... there isn't a way to distinguish the difference.
The wife of the driver who killed himself by rolling his truck in Toronto's Spandina trench will get the same silver cross as the mum/wife of the fella who was on the receiving end of an IED.  Both ladies will be on an equal footing when seen by the general public.

Should the Toronto driver's mum be considered for the honour of being silver cross mother on November 11th ?


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Jan 2009)

mariomike said:
			
		

> "award the medals to all mothers and widows of soldiers who died on active duty regardless of location"
> 
> "Active Duty" or "Active Service" means on the job full-time.
> A member who dropped dead in front of their living room TV would be treated the same as a KIA by this definition.  Presumably they mean "on duty". Even so, that's hardly the same as being KIA in a war.



Back in 1919, when the Memorial Cross was instituted, "Active Duty" meant at war or in operations.

What this situation proves is that 'public opinion' works. We, as a society, have decided that no one should 'suffer' so if this medal or that cross will ease someone's suffering then _"let 'em have it."_ I'm pretty sure that almost all the mothers and widows at least one of the widows who received Memorial Crosses for the sacrifice of a son or husband in battle would have shrugged and said "Oh dear, poor woman, if it will help to lessen her pain then give her a Cross, it doesn't diminish mine."

But it *does substantially* alter the *meaning* of the Memorial Cross - so much that I would hope that a new, different Cross memorial _token_ would be instituted for deaths incurred on other than "Active Duty."


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (19 Jan 2009)

If a medal gives this lady and her family closure then I don't see the problem.


----------



## geo (19 Jan 2009)

It might give closure .... but the question remains...
Should the trucker's mother be considered for the memorial cross mother at the national war memorial in Ottawa 
cause you realise that, if she isn't.... she could complain that she is being discriminated upon.


----------



## Stoker (19 Jan 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> It might give closure .... but the question remains...
> Should the trucker's mother be considered for the memorial cross mother at the national war memorial in Ottawa
> cause you realise that, if she isn't.... she could complain that she is being discriminated upon.



I would say yes, there has been pass annual memorial cross mothers whose Son was killed in a vehicle accident. I assume there is some sort of criteria for picking the annual memorial cross mother, I really can't see someone complaining that she was being discriminated upon.


----------



## geo (19 Jan 2009)

I really can't see someone complaining that she was being discriminated upon.

Ummm... regardless of wether it is right or wrong to present the cross to families for deaths which happened within Canada, someone DID complain about being left out.



Just wait - I can see the spouse or mother of a person who died of a coronary asking to be included in the medals parade.  Hell, her son/husband served in the CF for XX years and that's gotta be worth something - shouldn't it ?


----------



## chrisf (19 Jan 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> Well... there isn't a way to distinguish the difference.
> The wife of the driver who killed himself by rolling his truck in Toronto's Spandina trench will get the same silver cross as the mum/wife of the fella who was on the receiving end of an IED.  Both ladies will be on an equal footing when seen by the general public.
> 
> Should the Toronto driver's mum be considered for the honour of being silver cross mother on November 11th ?



Here's an alternate question, would you consider the mothers of the 7 airmen buried at the end of the CFS Alert run way to be worthy of memorial cross?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (19 Jan 2009)

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Here's an alternate question, would you consider the mothers of the 7 airmen buried at the end of the CFS Alert run way to be worthy of memorial cross?



IMHO since they where part of Operation BOXTOP then I would say yes.


----------



## armyvern (19 Jan 2009)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> IMHO since they where part of Operation BOXTOP then I would say yes.



Folk are burried at the end of the runway in Alert, those who perished in Boxtop 21 being none of them. Alert has seen more than it`s share of air crashs since it`s inception.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (19 Jan 2009)

Roger that.


----------



## geo (20 Jan 2009)

Sig Op,
I see a distinct difference between 
1) People who die while on operations - seamen while at sea, Airmen while on an operational mission & soldiers in the field
VS
2) Soldiers doing day to day admin/PT/mtce... even if they were on duty.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Jan 2009)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Yes.
> 
> If you believe a commemorative medal is justified for an MSE Op driving his truck into a wall in Wainwright, *then why not for some taxi driver in Toronto, or a postal worker who gets run over in Ottawa?*



Because they aren't military?



> If it's not attributable to a military operation, it's no different than the death of any other person. Sad for the spouse/parent, but not remotely worthy of a medal.



On exercise/tasking/course/training in Wainwright is not a military operation?


----------



## George Wallace (20 Jan 2009)

Oh my God!d  I got Carpaltunnel syndrom typing in this post, and a paper cut..........should I get one too?


----------



## geo (20 Jan 2009)

Eye in the sky.....
replace 
Toronto taxi driver by: Base bus driver
Postal worker by: Base postal clerk

Training in wainright is one thing.... how about the fella who is posted there & is just driving the truck that delivers "blue rockets" into training areas ?

There HAS to be a difference between the person who dies while accomplishing a mission VS the person who dies while taking care of day to day admin.... else, we might as well discontinue the entire memorial cross program altogether... cause it becomes IMHO meaningless.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Jan 2009)

Geo,

I can see your point with that.

In the case of Lt (N) Saunders, a fire on a sub in the middle of the drink is about as real as it gets...there should be no question.

I think that Cpl Bloggins who dies on Ex in Wainwright, well...he/she did die in the service of Canada as well.  

I don't know, I can't see any solution to this where the majority of serving members would be happy.  Personally, I think the Memorial Cross should cover death during the performance of military duties.  Cpl Bloggins shouldn't get one for slipping on the pizza box in his shacks and falling down the stairs.  

If a Sea King thunders into the inner ramp today here on 12 Wing and the whole crew is killed, but its a training flight, did they not die in the performance of their military duties?


----------



## geo (20 Jan 2009)

> I think that, Cpl Bloggins dying on Ex in Wainwright, well...he/she did die in the service of Canada as well.



replace the base - say it's Longue Pointe - CFB Montreal & Cpl Bloggins wanders into the 25 CFSDs yard & has a seacan dropped on top of him.... Mrs Bloggins has suffered the death of his son... but it just isn't the same thing.
On Ex - Yes
Not on Ex - NO


----------



## CountDC (20 Jan 2009)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Thank you for expressing the obvious.



reading through all the posts - this was not obvious and your post gave no indication that you understood this.



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> However, much like you saying you'd like to see this waste of defence budget now come in multiple colours, I was merely expressing the opinion that I disagreed with it being awarded for any non-operational deaths.



Yeah - big waste of defence budget,  I could have used that money to buy another box of pens. The amount for these medals does not even count as a drop in the bucket when it comes to the defence budget.

To set the record straight - I have not said I support the program, just if they are going to have it then recognize everyone and use a slight change to distinguish between those that fell in combat and those driving on the range in Canada. Personnally I feel it is a program that should never have been started as it was nothing more than a political feel good scheme. My wife has already stated she doesn't want it as she considers it an insult - "sorry your husband died, here you go, a pretty trinket to make you feel better. Like a stupid little cross will do anything for me, now a million dollars...". I should mention my wife is not a big fan of crosses - something to do with her being Jewish.


----------



## mariomike (20 Jan 2009)

CountDC said:
			
		

> Personnally I feel it is a program that should never have been started as it was nothing more than a political feel good scheme. My wife has already stated she doesn't want it as she considers it an insult - "sorry your husband died, here you go, a pretty trinket to make you feel better. Like a stupid little cross will do anything for me, now a million dollars...".



My grandmother used to hold her Memorial Cross like she was holding a baby.
She didn't get any money from the government. She wasn't able to visit my uncle's grave until 1954. 
Growing up, it wasn't uncommon to see older women wearing them on Sundays. 
In my opinion, if it gives a grieving mother some measure of relief, I wouldn't have the heart to deny them one.


----------



## mariomike (2 Jun 2016)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Her son Lieut. Christopher Saunders, a combat engineer, died on amission that seemed routine - the maiden voyage from Scotland to Halifax of a diesel-electric submarine, one of four Canada had bought from the United Kingdom.



06/2/2016 

School named for submariner who died after sub fire opens in New Brunswick
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/school-named-for-submariner-who-died-after-sub-fire-opens-in-new-brunswick-381622291.html
QUISPAMSIS, N.B. - A new school in New Brunswick has been named in honour of a Canadian submariner who died following a fire on board HMCS Chicoutimi.

Provincial officials, students and staff held a ceremony Wednesday to open the Chris Saunders Memorial School in Quispamsis.

See also,

Lieutenant Christopher ( Chris ) Saunders 
https://www.google.ca/search?q=site%3Aarmy.ca+Chris+Saunders&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=4qxQV_yfAoKN8Qe6v76YDQ&gws_rd=ssl#


----------

