Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved

that Bill C-84, an act to amend the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Pension Act and to amend other acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.

Mr. Edwards:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would seek and I believe you would find that there is unanimous consent in relation to Bill C-84, an act to amend the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Pension Act and to amend other acts in consequence thereof, to proceed with all stages of that bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):

Members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed?

Agreed.

Mr. Milliken:

Mr. Speaker, we are happy to give our agreement to this. I just note the great co-operation shown by the opposition on this occasion. It is a shame that the government did not do that yesterday when it used closure.

Mr. Brewin:

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to use the occasion to score a point off the government. I want to use this occasion to join all sides of the House in saying that we are very pleased to agree to the procedure. It has been agreed to push this bill through today. We will have a full discussion of the various points. I am not overwhelmed by the fact that we are in this position, and I will describe the details of my views on that when we get to it. But we all agree that this is an important bill and we are happy to proceed with it today.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):

Agreed and so ordered.

I wish to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(b), because of the ministerial statement

Government Orders

Government Orders will be extended by 30 minutes to 10.30 p.m.

Mr. Merrithew:

Mr. Speaker, this is a day when Canada's merchant mariners will be very happy indeed. Those sceptics who believed this time would never come can now abandon ship.

The legislation we are considering today will put merchant navy veterans on a par with veterans who served in uniform during World War I, World War II and in Korea. Members will note that the bill also deals with the allied resistance members and their access to the War Veterans Allowance program. I will say just a few words on this aspect of the legislation before returning to the good news for our merchant navy veterans.

What we want to do here is to return the War Veterans Allowance program to its original purpose, that being to provide income support to qualified Canadian veterans and to allied veterans having formal military service. It was never the intent of Parliament to include those having resistance service, and indeed no other country in the world provides military benefits to allied resistance members.

Our forecasts show that if we did not make these changes, the War Veterans Allowance Program would soon benefit mainly persons who had fought in the resistance.

Obviously that is not acceptable and you will realize that the great majority of veterans agree with these changes.

As I said earlier, this is a day for our merchant mariners and a day to recall their magnificent contribution to the war effort. The commemoration of the battle of the Atlantic in May reminds us once again of the debt the free world owes to those who faced the perils of the sea.

One statistic from the battle of the Atlantic says so much about the courage of those who manned our merchant fleet. During July 1942 the allies lost one ship of 10,000 tonnes or more every 10 hours, day and night, for the 31 days during the month of July 1942.

June 10, 1992

Government Orders

The mental fortitude of those who climbed aboard cargo ships in the face of those statistics was remarkable. Their courage was not a production of an adrenalin rush. They had plenty of time to consider the risks, like the fine soldiers who went over the top in the First World War and the crews of bomber command in the Second World War, our merchant mariners put duty before self.

The stoker who faced almost certain death if his vessel was struck by a torpedo volunteered to risk his life. Time and again merchant mariners signed on for danger. Canada's merchant mariners earned our gratitude. That is why I would not like it thought that the Canadian people, through their governments, were ungrateful once victory was ours.

Our merchant mariners and their families have been beneficiaries of many of the finest programs in the world. Most of the veterans' programs and benefits have been available to merchant mariners for a number of years, but not all. Neither have they had the ease of access to some benefits enjoyed by those who served in the Armed Forces.

Such unequal treatment rankled them. Merchant mariners felt it diminished the importance of their role in the war. They want to be regarded and treated as veterans. Today, we are doing just that.

Bill C-84 is more than just another piece of legislation. It is an acknowledgement of the wartime contribution of some very brave veterans. This legislation introduces the designation of merchant navy veteran. It will give them full veteran status. The omissions and the obstacles are being removed.

Let me make it perfectly clear, Bill C-84 will entitle merchant navy veterans to the benefits available to their wartime comrades in the army, navy and air force, at a cost of about $100 million over the next five years.

Who becomes eligible for the designation of merchant navy veteran? The answer is basically anyone who served in a Canadian registered ship engaged in home or foreign trade on the high seas during either of the two world wars or Korea. Any Canadian with first world war or second world war high seas service in an allied ship is included. Wartime service would normally have entailed the signing of articles of agreement.

Allow me to tell hon. members about the benefits this bill will give to our merchant mariners, because that is the important thing. That is the reason we are asking for

expeditious passing of this piece of legislation this afternoon.

I do not have to tell the House just how popular and effective our veterans' independence program is. There is no program like it in Canada, or as far as I know in the world. It is an economical and versatile way of helping veterans stay in their own homes with their families and out of institutions.

Naturally, many merchant mariners wanted to receive the veterans' independence program. However, as things stand now only merchant mariners who receive VIP because of their disability pensions are eligible. Regulatory amendments made in concert with this legislation will allow up to some 1,800 additional merchant mariners to join the veterans' independence program.

For the first time merchant navy veterans with a non-pensionable condition will be able to apply on an income tested basis, as are our uniformed veterans.

This brings them in step with the veterans of the Armed Forces. The average age of our veteran population is now over 71 years, and it is even higher for merchant mariners. Not surprisingly then, merchant mariners have long campaigned to have the same access as other veterans to care in a departmental medical facility or a contract bed in one of many institutions across the country.

Regulations being brought into force with Bill C-84 will allow merchant navy veterans the institutional access they have long sought. Other long-standing grievances will be removed with the passage of this bill this afternoon.

Take the six-month rule. In order to qualify for income support and some health care benefits merchant mariners have to show six months of wartime service at sea plus one voyage through dangerous waters. Merchant mariners have argued that the six-month qualifying period was unfair, and it will be removed for merchant navy veterans.

Another significant breakthrough contained in this legislation deals with disability pensions. Merchant mariners can now only qualify for disability pensions if they were injured as a direct result of enemy action. A sailor who suffered an injury while his vessel was at sea was out of luck as far as the present legislation is concerned. Any injury suffered away from enemy action was a matter for the merchant mariner and the shipping company he worked for.

June 10, 1992

Bill C-84 takes a different view of this. It recognizes that merchant mariners were covered for disability pension purposes from the moment they climbed aboard their vessel in port for a high seas voyage.

The removal of the enemy action provision will result in another estimated 230 merchant navy veterans, or their dependents, qualifying for disability pensions for the very first time. I am sure the House will agree that these are welcome changes. They certainly mirror the recommendations made by the House Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.

I want to thank that committee under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Crowfoot, Arnold Malone, who is ill today, for the attention it has given to the concerns of merchant mariners. I might also add thanks here to all of the members who served on that committee. Some of them are present in the House today.

The committee made other recommendations that do not need legislation. I want to discuss these, however, because I want to put on the record the position of the government on these other recommendations made by the standing committee.

Merchant mariners want the names of their compatriots who were killed in wartime to be honoured in a special book of remembrance in the Peace Tower.

The government agrees that there should be a Book of Remembrance dedicated to the merchant marine and personally I would like it to be placed in the Peace Tower as soon as possible. We are now working to make this wish a reality.

Another recommendation made by the House committee is for the government to encourage the erection of a monument dedicated to those killed in the wartime merchant navy.

I certainly hope such a memorial will be built. The government cannot help financially, with the exception of the one monument we do own. That is the National War Memorial here in Ottawa. It has a long-standing policy not to get involved with war memorials.

Government Orders

The National War Memorial honours everyone who served in Canada in the World Wars I and II and Korea. Obviously, merchant mariners and merchant navy veterans are very much included with those we honour on the National War Memorial.

I might add here that this is the exact position that the major groups of veterans, like the Royal Canadian Legion and others, asked us to do.

There are many war memorials across the country. They were erected by provinces, municipalities, associations of veterans and through the subscriptions of grateful citizens. Even today war memorials are being built. I get letters from schools and other organizations proudly telling me about the memorials they recently erected with funds raised through fund raising activities and by public subscription.

Given the high esteem in which merchant mariners are held, I would think that the public would be prepared to support any campaign for a merchant navy memorial and I would certainly encourage such a campaign.

The government has given careful attention to the work of the House committee, just as we have to the recommendations of the Senate subcommittee on veterans affairs, the advice of Canada's associations of veterans and, indeed, the coalition of merchant navy organizations that worked so hard on this piece of legislation.

At my request, they got together to study the whole question. Together we gave the merchant mariner issue the most thorough policy review since the end of World War II. I am grateful for the input of all those who worked hard and intelligently to recommend solutions to the government. For the most part, the government has accepted their recommendations.

Let me say in conclusion, that it has taken 47 years for merchant mariners to get their total due. I do not intend to lay blame for that delay nor do I intend to take the blame for it. I am proud that Bill C-84 has been presented during my watch. I ask members of all parties to give this legislation speedy passage. Canadian merchant mariners have waited long enough for this day and as I said to them when we announced this in March in Halifax: "Welcome aboard".

June 10,1992

Government Orders

Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to rise today to take part in the debate on this very famous Bill C-84.

This bill was designed to create some very positive, but also some very dramatic changes in Canada's veterans legislation.

It has been my privilege to serve for some time as the Veterans Affairs critic for the Loyal Opposition. In that time I have managed to make myself very familiar with veterans legislation and with the workings of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

In addressing the merchant mariners it is important to give an overview of this group of people. It all started on November 16, 1939. Two weeks after Britain declared war on Germany the first merchant marine convoy steamed out of Halifax harbour. This convoy began tracing the wartime route to England and the Soviet Union by which merchant seaman shipped vital aid to overseas allied troops and where many lost their lives.

Before the beginning of World War II, the German navy had planned a campaign to strike allied merchant ships coming from North America. In a German naval war staff memorandum dated 1939, the German high command defined the target of its principal strategy as the merchant ship. It was not only the enemy's vessels but every merchantman which sails the sea in order to supply the enemy's war interests.

The memo goes on to say that the final aim of such attacks is to cut off all imports into and exports from Britain. In accordance with this war staff memo, the destruction of the poorly armed and armoured merchant ships became the principal aim of Nazi surface warships, aircraft and submarines. German U-boats roamed the Atlantic in packs of 10 to 12 submarines to damage and to sink supply boats. German aircraft would bomb delivery ships as they neared the European coast. German warships, disguised as cargo vessels, would use their concealed deck cannons to tear into allied merchant fleets at sea. Alone or in convoys, merchant ships were vulnerable to attack on any part of their sailing route.

As these orders of the German high command indicate, merchant seamen were the focal point in this battle of the Atlantic that the minister just spoke about.

While merchant ships were vigorously pursued by enemy attack craft, allied warships were not able to track or combat the U-boats. Until 1942 the sight of a submarine tower would set a convoy into flight. The slower supply vessels of the convoy were left behind to be sunk by torpedoes. The merchant ships and the sailors were not themselves prepared for serious combat. Though anti-aircraft gunnery, gas and fire-fighting were required courses, mariners during wartime rarely could defend themselves against the torpedoes, bombs and shells of the heavily-armed enemy craft. Such was the lot of the merchant mariners during the war.

The minister has finally brought forth this long-overdue legislation some 47 years after the end of World War II. There are many reasons why this was not done earlier. It would be rather counterproductive at this point to go into all the reasons and to rehash the old arguments. What we do know is that all parties are in agreement that this is something which is long overdue and we have made this fact known to the minister by way of the all-party standing committee report which he had in his hands last fall.

I am pleased to see this legislation and I thank the minister for his efforts, but I wonder why this could not have been done six months or a year ago. When you consider the age of the potential recipients of the benefits of this legislation, any delay means that more and more will never get to reap the benefits or the recognition that they so deserve.

On this point I cannot emphasize enough the important role and contribution of standing committees in bringing such priority issues to bear in the legislative process. In contrast with the partisan, all-consuming ritual of adversarial combat so often witnessed in the front benches of this House, standing committees foster a rare collegiality among members conducive to bringing practical solutions to practical problems. Notably, when there are no party positions for matters under study, our standing committees have demonstrated a remarkably impressive record of consensus making.

The system has also shown that where there is both the political will and the personal flexibility for give and

June 10, 1992

take, constructive results responsive to the needs of Canadians can be achieved.

Structured to mirror the organization of Cabinet and empowered to initiate its own studies, the system of standing committees provides Canadians with an important mechanism to shadow the activities, the policies and the programs of each department and agency of government. It ensures that the fundamental principles of accountability and responsibility which are vital to democratic society are safeguarded. Its very ability to initiate studies, address specific questions and call witnesses also contributes greater confidence, specialized knowledge and expertise within the political system.

By enabling members to expose themselves to a wide spectrum of public opinion which would be otherwise a practical impossibility, as parliamentarians we are made more effective both in this House and in our constituencies.

Indeed the final measure of the standing committees' contribution to democratic institutions is the value of committee work in improving the relevance and the efficiency of Parliament. We have in this legislation before us today an important example of the result of this process.

Before continuing on, I would like to make one comment to recognize the invaluable professional expertise and support of the Library of Parliament research staff and those who work in the Department of Veterans Affairs for their expediency in bringing about this significant legislative action. I also want to thank the veteran's organizations for the many hours and weeks of work they have put into it.

Having said so much about institutions involved in the process, I should remind hon. members there were some benefits in place for merchant mariners over the past number of years under the terms of the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act.

To briefly summarize some of the provisions of those acts, a merchant mariner was entitled to receive a disability pension if they were injured as a result of direct enemy action. Merchant mariners were also eligible for a civilian war allowance, the equivalent of the war veterans allowance, if they had served at sea for at least six months and made one trip through dangerous waters.

The new legislation extends what is known as the insurance principle to disability pensions, meaning that as long as a merchant mariner was signed on for a voyage

Government Orders

he was, in fact, covered if he sustained any disease or injury, not just one as the result of enemy action.

The terms service at sea and dangerous waters have been removed from the legislation and we now have a high seas voyage as enabling criteria. For the most part, I see this as a positive step because over the years many people were denied benefits because they were a few days short of service. This lead to the situation where a member of the military could go beyond the territorial waters for only a day and qualify for the war veterans allowance, while a merchant mariner could have served in the same area for 179 days and still did not meet the requirements of the act.

I hope the minister will assure us the changes introduced will not have a negative impact on the applicants who served on the Newfoundland coastal trade. Many of these people provided a very necessary and important service by being the transportation lifeline to the outport communities in Newfoundland and I would find it most unsettling to see this legislation harm them in any way. What I seek from the minister is the assurance that those people will continue to enjoy the benefits and privileges they have now.

If I may digress for a moment, I think the recognition we are extending to the merchant mariners by designating them as veterans is a very important element of the proposed legislation. I know these merchant seamen who are still with us today, some of whom are in the gallery, will be thrilled with the new designation of merchant mariner veteran and will bear this recognition with the pride they demonstrated in service to their country. Grateful for their commitment in service we, on behalf of the people of Canada, hold them in highest regard and today formally say thank you.

I have long maintained we do not honour our heroes enough in this country. These men and women we are designating as merchant mariner veterans today were heroes whose courage and conviction made a difference in all our lives and today I salute them.

I also noted when the minister announced this legislation and when he appeared before the committee said he agreed in principle-again today he said this-with a book of remembrance. I would urge him to carry on with all possible speed in seeing that such a book is produced. So many people come to Ottawa and share in that very moving part of our history in the Peace Tower. Surely the minister will make a firm commitment to include the merchant navy veterans in this hall of honour.

June 10,1992

Government Orders

The second part of this legislation is of a different nature. It terminates benefits for a group of people who were awarded those benefits by a quasi-judicial board of the department in accordance with the 1985 interpretation of the existing legislation handed down by the Federal Court of Canada.

The bill before us specifies that resistance fighters will no longer be able to apply for benefits under the War Veterans Allowance Act as allied veterans. Those who are currently in receipt will be able to continue to receive the benefits, providing they reside in Canada after March of next year.

I understand this change in legislation came about because there was a perception by the Department of Veterans Affairs that the actual application of the provision was inconsistent with the original intention of Parliament. Moreover, since the war veterans allowance is an income tested program, it is very difficult to monitor the income of recipients who do not reside in the country. I can see justification for some of these matters but I do hope that we are not throwing out the baby with the bath water.

The minister has said on several occasions that this is part of a plan to return the war veterans allowance to its original purpose. This may be so, but I remind him that those words caused some concern when he announced them last March. The minister should also remember, and I know that he does, that the boards and the commissions within his portfolio can only interpret the words which are written in the act. They cannot decide what was or is the intent of Parliament at any given time. That is why I urge the minister to be careful in statements and very careful when he presumes to know what the people intended many years ago.

The fact remains that we have a bill before us which will in the future prevent resistance fighters from receiving benefits under the War Veterans Allowance Act. That is spelled out very clearly in the legislation and as members of Parliament we have to bear the responsibility for passing this bill.

While I have this opportunity, I would like to say a few words about the Department of Veterans Affairs in general. As members know, the head office of the department is located in the riding of Hillsborough and is

a major employer in that area of my province. The people of Prince Edward Island take a very keen interest in the affairs of this department and are perhaps better acquainted with the Department of Veterans Affairs and what it does and its programs than any other area of Canada.

I must say that I am very proud of the work done by the public servants at DVA. TTiey treat this very important clientele with courtesy, generosity and speed. The employees will go the extra mile to help the veterans and this is the way, I am sure, we all want it to be.

Mr. Speaker, you will recall that the relocation of the department to Charlottetown was announced during the time that the Hon. Dan MacDonald, a great veteran and a great Canadian, was the Minister of Veterans Affairs.

There were sceptics at that time who said that the head office of a national department could not function outside of Ottawa and it especially could not function in Charlottetown. A later minister who served in 1984 made several comments about the appropriateness of the move. I assure all members of this House that the move of the department to Prince Edward Island was a wonderful thing, both for the economy of my province and for the veterans and the people who work there.

The Department of Veterans Affairs is changing as its clientele ages. Hopefully young Canadians will never again have to answer that call to battle and the role of this department will be phased out eventually. This will require orderly change. It will require innovation on the part of the employees and on the part of the minister and his staff. It is most important that the service to veterans does not suffer over the next few years.

I understand there is currently a pension process review going on in the department which is an attempt to streamline the operations and to make it operate more efficiently. My advice to the minister is to carry on with the reviews but always remember that a promise has been made to the men and women who served Canada. It was first made by Sir Robert Borden and it has been made by countless prime ministers and ministers and other legislators since. That promise was to care for the men and women who served Canada. While one of them survives it is our duty to serve them as well as they served us.

June 10, 1992

At times like these when we are discussing new legislation, part of which will extend further benefits, it is very easy for us to become very smug and feel that everything has been done now for the veterans of Canada. There are still many veterans across the country, people who have served Canada in wartime, who are having a very hard time. They still require our care and our compassion.

Let us make this a part of our vow to them, that we as legislators will not forget them. Let us make sure that the Department of Veterans Affairs is maintained while there are still those who require its services.

In these times of downsizing and cost cutting, it is very much in vogue to point at one particular government department or the other and say that it could be done away with. I know that all hon. members will join me in expressing to the minister our support for a strong, vibrant Department of Veterans Affairs.

We are moving today one step closer to fulfilling our national obligation of looking after our veterans. It is no less incumbent upon us today as we recognize Canada's merchant navy veterans to continue to work relentlessly to resolve the remaining issues touching upon the lives of those who served our country.

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying to the minister that he was right in his remarks that this is not his fault, it is the fault of all of us and all Canadians for 45 or more years. But at long last merchant mariners will be getting what they should have had all that time.

I am assuming that in the bill and in the regulations which the minister will bring down subsequently, there will be no exclusions. The former member for Winnipeg North Centre who now graces the Clerk's table as an honorary officer of the House first raised this issue in 1946 and there were other members from all parties who raised it from time to time.

I want to also say at this time, in light of some remarks from my good friend from Hillsborough, if there is any one committee in the whole Parliament of Canada, if there is any one item of legislation which is totally non-partisan, it is veterans affairs. I cannot recall in my 24 years in this place ever any hon. member making a

Government Orders

partisan political issue of veterans affairs. We kicked each other around as to whether or not we were doing enough or not, but it was never partisan, it was never made a political issue.

That is also the case in this current committee and every committee before this. I want to warn the minister there is another matter that I and others will be raising-and I am sure he has already heard about it-but some time over the next several months the whole issue of benefits received by aboriginal people within DVA is equally long overdue for a review and redress. I think in particular of the Veterans Land Act.

I talked to a native person last Remembrance Day who had medals all the way across his chest. He went through everything in Italy and the rest of Europe and when he tried to buy some land under the VLA, because the land was in the reserve he could not get it. When he wanted to buy some next to the reserve, and add it to the reserve, he still could not get it. He ended up farming anyway. He found other ways of going about it.

This is one matter and I know this minister is the only one in all these years to have brought this to a head and to fruition. I am confident he will want to help in that matter as well.

The only complaint I have about the general thrust and principle of the bill is one that I have raised before, both with the minister in committee, and in this House. He, the department and I am afraid some veterans organizations have a mental block about merchant mariners being covered under the veterans legislation.

Why? One of the reasons given is that they were not in uniform. Hell's bells, we are paying benefits to resistance fighters who did not fight in uniform. In fact some of them fought with pieces and parts of German uniforms. After they shot them they had to have something to wear. You know this does not stand up. It does not hold water.

If that is logical that they were not in uniform, then what about fire-fighters and nurses under the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act? A lot of them went overseas and did a fantastic job and all were in uniform. They were in fire-fighter uniforms and nurse uniforms.

June 10,1992

Government Orders

The merchant mariners, however, were in all their grubbies, whether they were working in the galley or down in the stokehold, or wherever. Most of these were coal fired ships. Some of them were oil fired but most of them were coal fired. It was not the class of job where you would be in a full-dress uniform, but what the hell has that got to do with the price of wheat in China? It is totally irrelevant.

I want to say to the minister now that I never understood why we have not amalgamated the legislation for veterans under the DVA and the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act under one administration. They are all treated as veterans, period.

As my hon. friend, Mr. Darling, said in the standing committee: "Damn it, they are veterans. There are no ifs, ands, or buts".

I want to thank him and my other government colleagues who are on the standing committee who were towers of strength in giving a unanimous report to the minister and to the House.

It could be under one administration. I suspect the department could even save some money. Why the heck there are two administrations-one handling civilian war allowances and one handling veterans war allowances- when they are all veterans anyway, is totally beyond me.

I know the minister inherited this, but this is another first move he could make. I hope he will take it up with his deputies and a few others around his kingdom.

The minister paid tribute to the merchant mariners. Bless him for that. One of the problems they were having was that they were not accepted into the armed forces for physical reasons, as a rule. They might also have been underage or overage. You would be surprised as to how many teenagers as young as 13 ended up as mess boys on a merchant ship during the battle of the Atlantic or on convoys to Murmansk. There were also men as old as 45, 50 and 55 years old who were working as merchant seamen only because they could not qualify when they tried to volunteer to serve in the armed forces.

I want to thank my colleague at the outset for cariying the ball for me and my caucus on this issue and because

of other matters which I will not mention here. I hope the minister, when we get to committee stage, will put something in the bill about VIP benefits for merchant mariners. We have been told that it will be in the regulations. However, I have seen too many times and on too many pieces of legislation that when it comes to drafting regulations the Department of Finance and Treasury Board hung over the minister's shoulder and the regulations got narrowed down and shortened up.

The minister can have only one sentence. Will he move an amendment or will he accept one from us? This would say that merchant mariners are entitled to all the benefits available to those who are covered by the Department of Veterans Affairs Act.

I must say something about retroactivity. The government could have put in a little bit of retroactivity even on one item that merchant mariners did not get, but guys like me did get. There was the $100 clothing allowance. By the way, in 1946, for $100 I bought a new hat, a two-piece suit, new shoes, socks and underwear. The whole outfit cost $100. They were not very stylish. I forget whether it was at Eaton's or The Bay in Calgary the day after I got discharged because they gave me $100 cash.

Why not give these guys a $500 clothing allowance? It would give a lot of them a half-decent outfit to be buried in because most of them are not going to be around long. This is one of the reasons why we have agreed to this bill going through quickly. If we wait any longer some of them will not be here to get the benefits.

I want to say that if there is any one thing-and it may well be the only thing-that no taxpayer or citizen of Canada will ever object to, it is what we do for our veterans. It should not matter what the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board say about any increases we bring about. The minister must fight harder and members on all sides of the House will support him for any extra money or any amount of money he needs to fulfil what we owe to all our veterans. This includes merchant mariners. It will damn well be there. There is no taxpayer anywhere in this country who is going to object to that. They may object to a lot of other things that taxes go for, but that is not one of them. It never has been and never will be.

June 10, 1992

On the matter of what we spend, the Department of Veterans Affairs for the past eight years has underspent its appropriated budget by an average of $47 million. It was not as though the minister of this department got to keep the money. They do not have it stashed away in Zurich.

It was just never used, therefore the Minister of Finance took it back. This occurred every year for the last eight years. I want to say, to be fair, that under previous governments the same thing happened every year. While members of this House from all sides were fighting to get benefits for veterans of all kinds from all parts of the country, poverty was pleaded, restraint was pleaded, other things took higher priority. That just cannot be allowed to go on.

I want to thank the minister for bringing this in as quickly as he has. I almost raised a question of privilege when he replied to our committee's report because that was totally out of order and the Speaker was too nice.

He got away with it, but at least he has brought in the legislation. All I can say is let us get this through by ten o'clock tonight. I encourage all hon. members to take part. We waited 47 years. It is like the guy who came from Mars and landed on earth. He was running around examining all these human beings. He finally found two of them who were making love. He watched this performance for a while and he said to the guy that was with him: "What are they doing?" The guy replied: "They are trying to make a baby". "When will they have that"? "It takes nine months". "Could you tell me what all the hurry was the last 90 seconds?"

After 47 years what is all the hurry that we cannot have a few hours on a matter such as this. I hope that the bill will pass and pass unanimously. I hope the minister is prepared to answer some questions at committee stage. He certainly will have the co-operation of my party and my colleagues in the official opposition in getting this passed.

Do not deny us our day in court to remind not just the minister but the whole country that we are finally paying some bills that are long past due. We might move amendments. We will try but will get ruled out of order because they cost money. Surely some of these benefits could be made retroactive, particularly for those who are in such terrible need for mental or physical reasons.

Government Orders

I do not think we should be chiselling on that. Let us go for broke. Let us make up as much as we can what we have denied several thousand Canadians for too many

years.

Mr. Brewin:

Mr. Speaker, just briefly to put a few comments on second reading I did not understand that we had agreed to limit it, but I will not be very long.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):

You can put them

in Committee of the Whole.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Agreed.

Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):

Pursuant to Standing Order 100, I do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole.

House in committee on Bill C-84, an act to amend the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Pension Act and to amend other acts in consequence thereof-Mr. Paproski in the chair.

On Clause 2-Short title

Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):

Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can just explain that we have all agreed to try to see if we can get this bill through today because of the crowded parliamentary schedule.

All members wish to see the bill and the regulation through by July 1 so that the benefits can begin on Canada's 125th birthday. As part of that procedure, some of us have agreed to make our general remarks on clause 1 of the bill. I have also a number of specific comments that I would like to make, but first let me just make a few general remarks.

This is of course a very important bill. It provides, as has already been described, for Canada's merchant mariners to finally get what is due them as veterans of Canada for their service during the two world wars and the Korean war.

This day has come to this Parliament as a result of the efforts of members on all sides of the House. Already my colleague from Regina-Lumsden has mentioned Stanley Knowles. I would like on behalf of our party, however, to put on the record of Parliament the particular efforts of the member for Regina-Lumsden who has served in this House for 24 years, who has been pressing

June 10, 1992

Government Orders

this issue, who has introduced private members' bills and is here today to see this bill through.

I pay tribute to the minister for having pushed the bill through and for responding to the standing committee report and to the pleas of those who have felt that this injustice had to be corrected.

I would also like to pay particular attention to two other members of this House and I am going to refer to them by name. I know that is a breach of the usual rules: One is Arnold Malone who is chair of the standing committee and as has already been mentioned is sick at home. He is not here today to join in this debate. As well, there is the veteran member from Parry Sound- Muskoka, who has also contributed much to this. Further, a member in the other house, Senator Jack Marshall, is due recognition for a major contribution to having this bill introduced in the House.

Reference has been made to the standing committee report. The Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs studied this issue last year and produced a unanimous report recommending that Canadian merchant mariners with one or more high seas ocean-going assignments during war time be fully recognized as veterans and that veterans benefits be extended to them.

The committee also recommended that a book of remembrance be prepared and placed in the Peace Tower dedicated solely to the merchant mariners who died in Canada's wars. I am pleased to hear the words of the minister that that will be done. He said it will be done as soon as possible. I hope the emphasis will be on the soon because the issue is an important one to the merchant mariners. I hope arrangements can be made within months for that book to be opened and dedicated in our Peace Tower.

As well, the committee recommended that the Department of Veterans Affairs encourage the construction of a suitable monument to honour the memory of Canada's war-time merchant mariners. The committee also suggested a suitable site in the area of Halifax, and that has now been started.

I hope the minister is prepared to ask the government to match grants on this particular monument. I know the policy to which he referred, that the government does not usually get involved in monuments for veterans, but this is a special case. There have been years and years go by and this is one particular monument in a special location. I would ask the minister to agree to put it to the government that on this particular occasion the government would be prepared to match any contributions made toward the establishment of a suitable monument.

Finally, let me cast a slight cloud on the feeling of unanimity of this discussion. We have all said that we want this bill through today, but we have been put in a very difficult position by the government. It is our special responsibility on the opposition side to make sure that this bill achieves that which our constituents have sent us here to do.

Members of the government side also have that responsibility. They exercise that responsibility often in different ways. When a bill comes before the floor of this House we have a special responsibility to see that that happens. In fact, the procedures of this House normally provide that after second reading the bill goes to a legislative committee. At that legislative committee, experts on the bill and those who have a special interest in it have an opportunity to come before the committee and advise this House of Commons on the possible errors or omissions that there may be in the bill.

We are going to miss the benefit of that exercise in this bill. For most of us this bill surfaced just last week when the minister introduced it at first reading on June 2, 1992. It is a bill which contains 22 clauses. Some of those clauses have complicated inter-relationships with other legislation. It is very difficult to get a bill like this right the first time.

I realize that the minister has highly qualified advice at his disposal, but I practise law and I can understand that it is possible that others have seen something which one misses in the draft of an agreement or the draft of legislation. Therefore, by following the procedure we are prone to making some mistakes.

This bill could have been drafted months ago. The committee report was available last year. It took the department a very long time even to make a preliminary response.

June 10, 1992

If this bill had been introduced before the House of Commons months ago, even weeks ago, we could have had a legislative committee review the procedures and review the sections of the act to ensure that there are no mistakes.

In the course of this committee discussion we will look to the minister for the various interpretations that his officials have of this act and get him to put on the record responses to the concerns that have been placed before us as members of Parliament. All we can do in the time available is to ask the minister for those assurances.

If there are to be any complicated drafting changes it would not be possible under the procedure we have agreed to today. Therefore, we are all going to be, the minister included, in the position of putting this bill through without the benefit of third party advice, as in the process that this Parliament usually sets down for important and complicated pieces of legislation.

Therefore, I am going to ask the minister if he will undertake to keep track of the interpretations placed on the bill and the effect of it and if he will agree, on behalf of the government, to a review of this bill within two years to ensure that every intention expressed today by the government with respect to this bill meets the language of the bill and that the minister will open up the bill for revisions if necessary.

Finally, let me pay tribute to the Merchant Navy Coalition, a group including the Canadian Merchant Navy Association, the Canadian Merchant Navy Prisoner of War Association, and the Company of Master Mariners of Canada. I would particularly like to note the work of Mr. Olmstead, who is the chair. The Coalition has worked long and hard to have this day come to pass.

Winston Churchill once said, and it would apply not only to those who fought in the Battle of Britain over Britain but to the merchant mariners of Canada and other countries: "Never have so many owed so much to so few". We finally say to the merchant mariners today: "You are not forgotten".

Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity- Conception):

Mr. Chairman, I really had not planned to speak before the Committee of the Whole. I know we are anxious to get on with other business, but this is a great victory for merchant seamen, for the House of Commons, and for our process. It is one of the few victories I have seen.

Government Orders

While some people may say it has taken a long time to achieve, I am personally delighted that the committee sat. The last committee report was signed about a year ago.

I do not think it is fair to let the proceedings continue without some kind of a poignant tribute to those merchant seamen who have achieved this victory today. I would like to take some time in the Committee of the Whole to record the reason we are about to take this decision.

At the outset of World War II the merchant navy was not very large. It had 37 ships and 1,400 people. By the end of World War II it had 180 ships and a total of 12,000 personnel. More than 70 Canadian ships were lost in World War II. To me it is very significant that the loss of life was about 10 per cent. In other words, a young merchant seaman who joined a ship and went on one of the voyages that we have discussed today had a 10 per cent chance of not coming back. That is very meaningful to me, and I am sure to all members of the House.

Most of the losses occurred from 1941 to 1943 during the period we know as the Battle of the Atlantic when the enemy forces were consolidated in the low countries, France and Norway. They were able to take their fleet out of the North Sea and the Baltic Sea and send it out to the Atlantic to attack merchant shipping during that very difficult period in time.

They went beyond the Atlantic. They went up to the gulf of St. Lawrence. They sank ships along Bell Isle. It was in this period that the war was brought home to North America.

I was not very old but I do remember the sinking of the Caribou, for example. It was a very tragic situation that will forever remain in the minds of certainly all Newfoundlanders, and I think it is safe to say most maritime Canadians.

The motto of the merchant navy was: "We deliver the goods" and deliver the goods it did. It was estimated by some that on average one ship carried enough foodstuffs to feed 225,000 people for one week. That is a fantastic statistic considering the rationing that was taking place and the fact that people in Europe were hungry. The cargoes also included strategic war materials.

June 10, 1992

Government Orders

These ships became a target for the enemy. When the wolf pack submarines were at sea during this period they were not out to hunt down destroyers, frigates and corvettes. They were there for one purpose, which was to kill the merchant ships and prevent the cargo from reaching Europe. This was a strategic effort that these brave men made during this very difficult period.

I would like to provide a feeling of what was involved in this. Essentially merchant navy veterans, as they are now called, found themselves in a combat role for which they were ill equipped. They did sail in convoys under the protection of naval vessels, but a convoy of 100 ships had an escort of three, four, or five escorts. I am not sure that is the kind of protection I would have felt safe under, but the statistics speak for themselves.

When they got closer to Europe long range German airplanes bombed and strafed them and they were also at the mercy of floating mines. Compounding all this was every mariner's traditional antagonist, the weather. There was the close proximity of ships in convoy formations, complex zigzag patterns governed by the clock, bad weather, and a darkened ship. The only way I can convey the feeling to the House and the audience this afternoon is to remind them of the movie The Cruel Sea, which depicts the convoys at sea and the torture, discomfort and even panic that they went through.

We can imagine being on one of those ships in the black of night and being torpedoed, our ship sinking in the North Atlantic, where we can only live for two minutes if we are not rescued, in certain parts of it. Some of them survived to go back to sea to be sunk again, and some were sunk a third time and still survived.

It gives me great pleasure and it is a great honour for me to be able to be part of the very historic action that we are about to take in the highest court of our country today.

There is one other thing I want to mention. I said these merchant ships were not armed but some of them were. Some of them had trained gunners who were trained by the navy in a very short course. They went to sea as boys. Not only did they serve as merchant men but they also served as gunners. They had additional duties in ships that were called DEMS, defensively equipped merchant ships.

From speaking to some merchant navy veterans I can tell the House that they were very pleased to have the DEMS in their midst. Sometimes there would perhaps be only one, two, or maybe three escorts.

The minister, the hon. member for Hillsborough, and my hon. colleague from Regina spoke very eloquently on the details of the bill and to whom it applied. That has been useful to all those who have been watching.

As a Newfoundlander I am particularly pleased that the limitation of 180 days has now been removed because in the last three years I have been involved in many cases in which there was a dispute over whether it was 180 days or 170 days. Memories fade, and there are depositions and the legalities of things. I am very pleased that there are at least three or four cases that I know of that can now be sorted out with relative ease.

I have great admiration for those merchant seaman and merchant navy veterans organizations. I am not going to list them all. They know who they are. I know who they are.

I am a relative newcomer to the business of fighting for them politically so I am not going to take any credit at all. There are people in this House and others who have fought the battle for them for over 47 years.

However, the credit goes to them because in my mind the tenacity, the determination and the skill they showed in fighting this political battle was equal to the seamanship and courage they showed during the period under discussion.

I thank the minister, the hon. member for Crowfoot and the committee for the excellent work they have done, and the others who have also made contributions. I thank the House and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for indulging and allowing me these few moments to put on record these remarks that will be very important to the merchant navy veterans and to those who fought that fight and who I am sure are celebrating today a great victory.

Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):

Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to join my colleagues in support of this bill, an act to amend the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Pension Act and to amend other acts in consequence thereof.

June 10, 1992

We all know that this bill took a long time in coming down the pike. Merchant mariners have been calling long and hard for this type of action. Merchant navy veterans faced the great obstacles of weather and war to protect the supply line to the United Kingdom during World War I and World War II.

The new definition of merchant navy veteran outlined in the bill is far-reaching. The veteran is a person who had service on a Canadian ship while on a high seas voyage during World War I or World War II, or a Canadian national who had service on an allied ship while on a high seas voyage during either world war. It also includes any person who from 1950 to 1953 had service on a Canadian ship while on a voyage in dangerous waters.

As my colleague from Hillsborough and the Minister of Veterans Affairs have mentioned Bill C-84 has two main purposes, both of which are eminently supportable.

First, this bill will extend certain benefits to our wartime merchant mariners. Second, it will take away War Veterans Allowance benefits from persons who served as members of allied resistance forces.

The second point is important in the interest of fairness. It may be difficult to assess how many illegitimate claims were made to the government by people who would never be eligible. It is important to note that without legislation the resistance component of the program is forecast to take up over 50 per cent, or $60 million, of the total program expenditures within five years.

We all know that this is unacceptable when there are needy veterans out there who have served our country well and while at the same time our nation is faced with a huge debt.

About 5,800 War Veterans Allowance recipients are getting government money because they were members of a resistance force. About 1,700 of the total are receiving the benefit outside Canada. Personally, I do not agree with that.

By contrast, under 1,000 Canadians and allied veterans with formal military service receive War Veterans Allowance outside Canada. With Bill C-84 resistance members now need to demonstrate 10 years residency in Canada. A Canadian citizenship is not a requirement of the WVA Act.

Government Orders

It is good to see that this bill will make permanent the requirement that a resistance fighter receiving money from the Canadian people through their federal government must live in Canada. That only makes common sense, something that does not happen all that often in this House of Commons.

As we know, through the provisions of this bill, recipients now living outside Canada will have one year to return to Canada or lose their entitlement altogether.

When the WVA Act was first passed, it was never Parliament's intent that resistance service would qualify as military service. Through interpretation of the act by quasi-judicial bodies, this qualification arose. I wonder if those people who made these decisions were ever in battle for their lives as our courageous veterans were.

I say again that I heartily endorse the government's efforts to correct this loophole. The purpose of the resistance group changes in Bill C-84 is to restore the excellent War Veterans Allowance program to its original purpose, to provide income support to wartime Canadian and allied veterans of regular military forces.

I know that all the Royal Canadian Legions in my riding fully support this measure. I meet with the local legion presidents regularly. One thing that comes through crystal clear is that everything should be fair and be seen to be fair. God knows our veterans have confronted death and destruction and governments of every party have supported them. They want to be treated with the respect they deserve. We owe everything to our veterans.

The bill states that no new applications from resistance fighters will be accepted and the current recipients will lose their benefits if they move abroad. As well, those now living in another country are given one year to take up residency again in Canada or lose the War Veterans Allowance. All Canadians with common sense would back that-as I and the members of the Official Opposition do.

I want to point out to the House that the Royal Canadian Legion will hold its 34th Dominion Convention in Quebec City later this month. Resolution No. 16, that deals with War Veterans Allowance for allies has been prepared. The resolution says that in 1930 the War Veterans Act was enacted and included payment to allied veterans, the intention being to ensure protection to those Canadians who served in His Majesty's Forces such

June 10,1992

Government Orders

as the Royal Air Force, since Canada had no air force of its own during World War I.

Further, it says that Canada is the only nation in the world paying such compensation to allied veterans, and Canadians living in foreign lands do not receive anything comparable to the War Veterans Allowance from their host country.

The legion says: "There are known cases of fraud, which are now being investigated by the RCMP, of people who could be getting the benefits without the service".

The resolution says furthermore that Veterans Affairs Canada pays a large portion of the War Veterans Allowance budget to allies, and whereas there are outstanding funding requirements to meet the ever-increasing health care needs of Canadian veterans and their widows, therefore be it resolved that the Royal Canadian Legion requests the Minister of Veterans Affairs to amend the War Veterans Allowance legislation by tightening up the allied veterans provision and to ensure that the benefits are extreme towards Canadian and Commonwealth veterans and their dependents.

It also says that be it further resolved that any War Veterans Allowance payments made outside Canada should only be made to veterans of Canadian and Commonwealth wartime armed forces.

Bill C-84 answers that legion resolution. I am sure all those in attendance at the convention will be delighted.

This particular piece of legislation makes my job as a member of the opposition but more important as a member of Parliament, all that much easier when I can get up and support a government proposal. Too often we hear Canadians complaining that all we do is fight and argue while the country waits for action on the important matters. Here is an example of government legislation that is good, fair, fiscally responsible, and supported by members of the opposition.

I do add very quickly that this bill has been a long time in coming. Its full recognition of merchant mariners is long overdue, but the benefits provided will be of great help to the aging veterans.

I am pleased to have had an opportunity, how ever brief it was, to speak on the merits of this bill. As my friend from Hillsborough stated in his speech, we will be supporting this bill.

Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):

Mr. Chairman, I realize the House has agreed to expedite this legislation, something that I thoroughly welcome. Therefore, I will not speak at length on this bill which is something I would normally like to do because it is an issue very close to me.

I welcome and commend the final and full recognition of merchant marine veterans. It is something that has been long overdue. I am especially pleased to see their full eligibility for the Veterans Independence Program.

I cannot let the debate pass however without rising on behalf of the many merchant marine veterans in the South Shore area and indeed the many in Nova Scotia. I know this legislation will be welcomed by all people in my province.

This is an issue that has been close to my heart. It was one of the few campaign pledges I made when I ran for public office, to fight on behalf of this issue. This was the first issue I raised as a member of Parliament when I came here in 1988.1 have raised it several times since. As the Minister of Veterans Affairs knows, I have been at his door about this for a long time. This is a very, very happy day for me and I just want to mark that occasion by mentioning it.

I wish to commend members on all sides of this House for their support of this legislation. I wish to commend all members of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs and, in particular, the chairman who is unable to be here today.

I wish to commend Senator Jack Marshall who has fought for this cause for many, many years. I wish to commend the merchant marine veterans associations who have fought for this. In particular, I wish to commend this Minister of Veterans Affairs who, after 47 years, was the minister who took up this issue, took it to cabinet, got it approved and has it before us here today.

June 10, 1992

In closing my remarks, I am pleased to quote a couple of sentences from a letter from the president of the Royal Canadian Legion who writes to the minister: "I write to congratulate you for the obviously considerable amount of time and thought that went into the production of these amendments. You can count on the support of the Royal Canadian Legion in these proposals." He goes on to say: "There is no doubt that this legislation is a major step forward towards satisfying the remaining needs of those deserving merchant navy veterans who supplied the tools and the fuel for war and the defence of democracy".

It is a happy day for all merchant marine veterans and a day that should make all Canadians proud.