Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):

Mr. Chairman, I want to echo the comments of my hon. friend from South Shore. It is not very often that we get the chance in this House, particularly these two Nova Scotians, to agree on very much in this place, but the comments that he just made are ones that I want to echo. I also want to congratulate the minister and all the members of this House who have worked so hard to bring this bill to the floor and to committee today.

Being a member from Dartmouth, the old riding being Dartmouth-Halifax East, makes this bill even more important. My hon. colleague from P.E.I. indicated in the history lesson he was giving in his speech that it was way back at the beginning of the war that the first group of merchant vessels steamed out of Halifax harbour. There are a lot of people a little older than I am who remember all of those vessels steaming out of Halifax Harbour.

There are a lot of veterans still down there and a lot of new veterans created by this bill, those merchant mariners who served for Canada and served for the Commonwealth during World War II. It is indeed fitting that finally they have received the recognition due them.

We must remember that the individuals who served in the merchant marine were not just regular or normal veterans. Most of the veterans who we sent over were trained in the military. They knew how to operate offensive and defensive weaponry.

Government Orders

When dealing with merchant mariners, these are individuals who ran supply vessels. When these vessels left and went across the ocean even with an armed convoy to protect them, many times they were the slowest boats because they were supply vessels.

When the German U-boats went after them, those vessels would be the first to be sunk. You also have to remember that they really did not have any heavy armaments on them. As a result of this, the men who served in the merchant marine and the merchant marine generally suffered the highest casualties of any branch of service in the armed forces during the Second World War.

We know that as each year passes the number of veterans diminishes. They are getting older and each year there are more and more who die. I think it is extremely fitting at this point in time that this bill looks at the whole aspect of recognition of the service that they have given to this country, not only by the provision of additional benefits but also by conferring on them a new status and a new title, "merchant marine veterans".

The word veterans means a lot to those who are still left and who served in the merchant marine. It means an awful lot to the sons and daughters of those who are gone, those fathers who served in the merchant marine.

I want to join with everybody in this House in saying that every member of this place, no matter what political affiliation, is extremely pleased to see this bill: I want to commend the minister for his stick-to-itiveness to get to this point and to bring it forward.

I also want to give some recognition to my hon. colleague from Regina-Lumsden. I think one of the first times that I can remember hearing about this issue was well before I was a member of Parliament. I was watching a debate on the parliamentary channel. That member was up very clearly and articulately stating the case for full recognition of the contribution of the merchant mariners as veterans. I am sure that it is an extremely proud day for him that this House is seized with this issue today and hopefully at the end of the day that for which he has fought so long will see its way into legislation.

June 10,1992

Government Orders

Mr. Marc Ferland (Portneuf):

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to congratulate the minister and thank him for tabling this bill in the House. I also want to thank members of the opposition for doing everything they can to adopt this bill as quickly as possible.

When I became a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, I was astonished when I found out about this blatant injustice which had been dragging on for more than 45 years, in fact quite a bit more if we include World War I. For decades, the government had refused to recognize the war records of merchant seamen who had agreed of their own free will to serve on board ships engaged in supplying the troops on the European front. They had been ignored. It was felt they were not real veterans.

Today, I am pleased to join hon. members in adopting a bill that will make amends for the tremendous injustice suffered by these men who sacrificed their lives. It must be said, that of all those who served in the two great wars, merchant seamen paid the highest price in human lives. No other unit, the air force, the marines or the army, suffered as many losses as the merchant seamen.

I am pleased to see that this legislation will be adopted today, and once again I wish to congratulate the minister.

Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):

Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions which perhaps the minister could clarify.

First of all, in the standing committee report there was reference to the issue of merchant navy prisoners of war. The minister will know, of course, that under the basic disability pension for prisoners of war, there are steps which express the percentage of basic disability pension. For example, if someone was interned for 90 to 545 days they would receive 10 per cent of the basic disability as compensation, 15 per cent for 546 to 910 days and then those interned for more than 910 days receive 25 per cent of the basic disability pension.

In World War II, of the 2,198 military prisoners of war, fewer than 40 were incarcerated for more than three years or 1,100 days. Yet of 198 merchant navy prisoners of war, 122 were interned for periods of four to five years. The committee suggested that it would be reasonable to have the time measured compensation extrapolated beyond 30 months so that those who were interned for longer periods would be entitled to additional benefits.

I was wondering if the minister could indicate whether this comment in the committee report was considered by the government. It certainly is not part of this bill. Why not? Will the government consider that particular idea as another element of justice to the merchant navy veterans, those who were unfortunate enough to be interned for these excessive periods of time during World War II?

Mr. Merrithew:

Mr. Chairman, I should just mention that I do know where that particular suggestion comes from. There is an association, not a very large one, the Merchant Navy POWs. They have been trying to put their views forward to the minister and the government over a period of time.

During the discussion of the report of the standing committee, and indeed this whole issue, we met with the president of that particular group. He agreed at the time that the priority was to get this legislation through and get benefits for all merchant mariners, including the status veteran, and that he would put off the other issue until we get this thing through. Obviously we will have to do that.

I should point out that merchant navy prisoners of war are treated exactly the same way as are the uniformed prisoners of war. The same legislation covers them. It will have to be one that will be dealt with later. That was with the concurrence of the president of the POW Association.

Mr. Proud:

I ask a question of the people at the table. Under 8(c), page 5, I just wondered if it could be explained to me again what happens in this 8(c) where it says:

(c) after taking into consideration such corroboration as may be

available, the Minister or the Commission, as the case may be, is

satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the information in the

declaration or statement is true.

I want to know what that does to the benefit of the doubt.

Mr. Merrithew:

Mr. Chairman, in considering applications to the Canadian Pension Commission, in the absence of other hard evidence, the commission would have to take into consideration a statutory declaration as to the service or maybe an event that happened during the service of a veteran.

June 10, 1992

The hon. member asked what the benefit of the doubt would be. It would not affect that at all. In the case of a statutory declaration the commission would still give the benefit of the doubt to the veteran.

Mr. Brewin:

Mr. Chairman, I was out getting a little assistance here. I gather there is some concern that this bill is going to take us a long time. I just want to assure the House that I see no reason why it should take us very much longer. There are very few further points we wish to raise and we are going to try to accommodate all sides of the House in getting this disposed of. Everybody can just relax and let us get this bill considered fairly.

I would like to move an amendment to clause 3 of the bill. The amendment I would like to move is in respect of clause 3 which purports to amend sections 5 and 6 of the act. My amendment would deal with one of the provisions considered for section 6 and in particular the definition of high seas voyage.

The definition of high seas voyage has three parts to it: (a), (b) and (c). My amendment would be to (c) and would come on page 3 of the act, line 2.1 would seek to add the words to subsection (c) "or was in danger of attack by the enemy" after the word "enemy". I have those words in French as well.

Let me explain my amendment this way. First of all, the benefits that are being extended to merchant mariners by this bill are affected by clause 9 which provides that:

The Pension Act applies to and in respect of merchant navy

veterans

(a) as though their service while on a high seas voyage had been military service rendered during World War I or World War II within the meaning of section 21(1) of that Act;

The term "high seas voyage" determines whether a person becomes entitled to the benefits under the act, and high seas voyage is defined in the new clause 6. It includes a voyage during the course of which the ship was attacked by the enemy.

I propose that it should add the words that I gave "or was in danger of attack by the enemy".

Government Orders

The way the bill is developed, a merchant mariner will become entitled to the benefits on any voyage outside territorial waters of Canada and on some territorial voyages, including those in which the ship was actually attacked. But it does not cover those who were in dangerous waters while they were in territorial waters.

Therefore it is important in my view that the coverage of the bill be extended, not only to those who were actually attacked while in territorial waters of Canada or its allies, for example within the three-mile limit of Britain. These are the merchant marines who would be on a voyage totally within the three-mile limit of Britain, or the three-mile limit of Canada, and where those waters would be defined as "dangerous waters".

As the bill has provided, you only get the benefits if your vessel was attacked. Therefore there is a distinction made between those who served in the navy and those who served in the merchant marine. Those who served in the merchant marine have to get outside the territorial limits to be assured of benefits and only receive the benefits within territorial waters if their ship is attacked.

Therefore I would ask the committee to agree to this amendment as an element of fairness to our merchant mariners.

The Deputy Chairman:

I would like to thank the hon. member for Victoria for allowing the Table and myself to have a look at the amendment.

I have looked at it and I am willing to rule now. Unfortunately I have to rule this amendment out of order because it goes beyond the limitations as set by the royal recommendation attached to this bill.

Indeed this amendment will allow more sailors to be eligible under the bill but this is contrary to citation 246(3) of Beauchesne's fourth edition which states in part:

The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand of recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of a change, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. In relation to the standard thereby fixed, an amendment infringes the financial initiative of the Crown, not only if it increases the amount, but also if it extends the objects and the purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the Crown has demanded or recommended a charge.

June 10, 1992

Government Orders

Therefore I must rule against the amendment.

Mr. Brewin:

Mr. Chairman, we of course accept your ruling. I just say that this is something we will put on the agenda for future consideration and seek in future to see if we cannot persuade government to extend the bill in this fashion.

Clause 3 agreed to.

On Clause 4-Evidence

Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):

Mr. Chairman, I have more the nature of a question than an amendment. If I am a little slow sometimes getting up it is in part because the numbers are a little confusing. The clause in the bill seeks to amend sections in the act. Section 9 of the act as it will be amended provides that the Pension Act applies to and in respect of merchant navy veterans as though their service were on a high seas voyage and being military service rendered during the war, et cetera.

Later in the bill, on page 7, part 1.1, the bill makes certain provisions for civilian merchant seamen and salt water fishermen. It expressly provides that for those persons, the civilians, if they suffer or contract an injury or disease or aggravation thereof while proceeding to their ship or returning from their ship or on leave from their ship, they will receive benefits under the act.

I would like it made absolutely clear that for merchant mariners the effect of the amendment in clause 4 of this bill will be to ensure that the exact same protection-and I understand this to be the insurance liability principle that is referred to by those who are very familiar with all this-is fully extended to merchant mariners.

I would ask the minister to make it clear that the benefits referred to in the latter clause for civilians are all in every respect available to merchant mariners, in particular that they are covered while they are proceeding to or from their ship, or while they are on leave in the case of injuries or disease.

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

Mr. Chairman, the insurance principle is a very important principle with regard to applications for pensions under the Pension Act because it covers the veteran, in this case the merchant navy veteran, for 24 hours while he is on duty. In this case the merchant navy is going to get the same treatment as a uniformed veteran would get. If they were proceeding on the way to performance of their duty on board a ship, they would be

covered under the insurance principle in the Pension Act.

It is attributable. As long as it is attributable to the service, they would be covered.

Mr. Brewin:

Just to be very clear. He said proceeding to. How about proceeding from and while on leave, the precise provisions in clause 15(2)?

Mr. Merrithew:

Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure. It means if they are on the way to their service on board the merchant ship or from it they are covered, the same as they would be under the military. In the case of leave, if it were authorized leave on a high seas voyage under the definitions under clause 3 of the bill, they are covered.

The Deputy Chairman:

Does the hon. member for Victoria have another amendment on clause 4?

Mr. Brewin:

No, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):

Mr. Chairman, I want to bring to the attention of the minister my concern over this section of the act.

I am not questioning the point he is making here where no new applications will be accepted. I accept readily that portion of the bill whereby more of the recipients of the allowance have to reside here in the country.

The particular problem I am facing, and I face it on a daily basis, is that I am hearing from many people in my community who were part of the resistance movement who have said that their application has been in the system upwards of two, three, and four years. As there was a re-examination in the last two years of all of the applications because of some fraudulent applicants, many of the legitimate applications were affected.

What we have is a situation now where the Government of Greece has verified the legitimacy of many of these applications that have been in the system. Now that they are back here in Canada because of the March 2 date, these people who would otherwise have been approved now find themselves caught in a situation where their applications are not being accepted.

June 10, 1992

It marks the first time that we as a country have really withdrawn a benefit from someone who has not only been in the queue, but has been in the system and is going through the process not only of verification, but in many instances this verification process has been going on for a second time.

Now that that has happened I think this part of the act is not fair. I would appeal through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister to address this because it is causing a lot of hardship for a lot of people in my community, especially those members of the Greek resistance fighters.

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

Mr. Chairman, what we tried to do in clauses 9 to 11 of this particular bill was to return the War Veterans Allowance program to exactly what previous Parliaments in history-this is since 1930-intended to do. It was for our own uniformed people. No country on earth gives pensions to a foreign nation for resistance service.

I want to state that we did not make that decision as a government. It was made by a quasi judicial board and eventually by a court as an interpretation of the laws which exist. We are correcting that. We are returning the program to what it was intended for, that is for veterans who were in uniform in time of war.

With regard to the point about the people in the queue, there is no question there were a lot of people in the queue. In fact, there were 1,600 people in the queue, most of them from one particular country. Obviously, as the government dealt with that particular issue, it had to deal with additional applications from those who were also in uniform during the war who were applying for War Veterans Allowance.

The government made the decision at that time that it was not going to process any more War Veterans Allowance applications after March 2, 1992. The decision was made by the government. It did affect the people who were in the queue but it did not affect those who were in receipt of War Veterans Allowance, because they had been grandfathered. That particular group received their benefits as a result of an interpretation of our legislation. We are going to honour that and grandfather those. The

Government Orders

government has made a decision that it is going to return this legislation effective March 2, 1992 to what it was intended for, War Veterans Allowance for the uniformed people.

Mr. Mills:

Mr. Speaker, I think that the misunderstanding comes when the minister uses this expression "in the queue". These are not people who were lining up to put in an application. I am talking about people who had their application accepted by the department. They were in the system and were in the process of being verified. Had there not been this period where because of some fraudulent applications all of them ended up being reviewed, many of them would have been approved and, therefore, they would have been part of this benefit.

The point that I am trying to make is that I am not talking about new applications. The minister has made a deadline of March 2. He has said "no new applications". On those applications which the department accepted, especially those that have been in the department for two and three years and which have been verified, not only by the Government of Greece but also by other forms of verification here, I appeal to the minister to differentiate between those that were in the queue and those that were inside the process.