Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-61, an act to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act and related legislation.
This is an omnibus bill that, when coupled with separate assumed undertakings by the government to right past wrongs, caused elderly merchant navy veterans to end their hunger strike on the steps of Parliament Hill last fall.
As with much omnibus legislation, there are several separate legislative initiatives, so that voting against the legislation means that one could be seen to be voting against certain provisions that actually improve matters for veterans, including merchant navy veterans. In the alternative, one could vote against the legislation based on what is not included in it. There is much in this legislation that does little to improve the the circumstances of merchant navy veterans in terms of their well known grievances.
Voting against legislation based on what is not there is not particularly constructive in my view. Voting against legislation because all the provisions are not as one might wish is also not particularly constructive. On the other hand, the parliamentary practice of introducing omnibus legislation is not a particularly fair or honest way of addressing primary grievances.
I want the record to show that while I favour specifics of the bill I do not believe that its format allows for a debate on this substantial issue at hand, that of compensation to our merchant navy veterans for past government wrongs, for past avoidance of responsibilities.
To correct this I will propose at committee that a special subcommittee be formed to examine compensation claims for years of denial of equality from the war to this date. I am expecting our government's wholehearted co-operation and participation in this special subcommittee.
In this bill there are two provisions that should meet with general approval in the House. Both relate to the lifetime effects of war, effects along with memories that are rarely erased. By way of amendment to the Pension Act former prisoners of war may now apply for special allowances even though they are not in receipt of a disability pension. An allowance of this nature could be used to provide for an attendant. This amendment would be welcomed in such cases where a prisoner of war never claimed a disability pension but now finds there is need for assistance. By this amendment there appears to be a general recognition that experiences as a prisoner of war will always have an effect on the enjoyment of later life even if no specific disability can be traced to the prisoner of war experiences.
In similar fashion spouses of deceased veterans classified as partially disabled at the time of death will now be able to seek a re-evaluation of the disability status of the departed veteran in order to receive increased survivor benefits. By this amendment it is recognized that any war related disability may become progressively more incapacitating even though the veteran chooses not to inform veterans affairs as to his deteriorated state.
Veterans have demonstrated time and time again that they are proud people, proud of their service to the country and proud of their independence. Veterans do not readily stand in the queue for a government cheque. By this amendment it is recognized that such independence of the veteran, while admirable, should not result in financial prejudice to a veteran's spouse whose post-war life was also affected by war related disabilities.
For example, a veteran may have suffered permanent hearing loss as a result of bombing missions over Europe. The veteran was assessed as partially disabled. However, his balance became progressively worse due to the effects of diminished hearing. At some point the veteran ceased to work due to difficulties with walking and balance. What this amendment does is recognize that once again a war related injury may have lasting and progressively more serious effects on the well-being of any veteran. The effects of war are again recognized as lifelong.
Many arguments have been made to deny merchant navy veterans the benefits they have claimed. I will canvass the principal claims. It has not been easy to obtain agreement as to these four points given the various factions within the merchant navy veterans organizations, although I did succeed in obtaining agreements from all parties. There are four main demands of all groups representing the various factions: to be recognized as war veterans, to receive prisoner of war benefits, to receive compensation for years of denial of equality, and to receive recognition on ceremonial days.
Bill C-61 addresses recognition of war veterans status. Merchant navy veterans are war veterans for all purposes and in all respects. Therefore formal recognition of merchant navy veterans on ceremonial days, in particular on Remembrance Day, should now occur as a matter of course. Equivalency of prisoner of war benefits is also implicitly addressed.
The key issues not addressed in Bill C-61 is compensation to our merchant navy veterans for years of denial of equality. As with prisoner of war benefits, general benefits available to all veterans have been available to merchant navy veterans since legislative amendments in 1992. The fact that they may or may not be treated equally now is not the issue. The issue not addressed in this legislation and also not addressed in the 1992 legislation is retroactive compensation, to acknowledge that merchant navy veterans despite their crucial and valorous service in war were not placed on the same benefit footing as other returning veterans after the war.
An inequality of post-war opportunity leads to an inequality of post-war outcomes. In short, the post-war lives of our merchant navy veterans were short changed by the government.
The valour and sacrifice of our merchant navy veterans are well known. They faced death more than any other Canadian fighting force with one in seven merchant mariners being killed in World War II. This horrendous statistic is evidenced by the fact that, until corrected recently by veterans affairs, the commonly held wisdom was that the death rate was one in eight, which is equally horrendous.
Members of our Canadian merchant navy were vital suppliers to the war effort. It is true that merchant mariners were not subject to the same military discipline as those in the armed forces. It is also true they were paid marginally more than those in the armed forces. However, their service to Canada's war effort was very different from those who contributed to the war effort in factories and offices but who did not face death daily. Their service to Canada's war effort was also very different from those currently in receipt of veterans pensions who were members of the armed forces but who never went overseas.
The reason we view members of the merchant navy as war veterans is that the nature and dangers of their service were clearly no different from anyone else on the front lines. Given the paltry difference in salary between those in the armed forces and those in the merchant navy, it cannot be said that merchant navy veterans risked their lives for the money. Like others actively serving in the war, they risked their lives for their country and to preserve its freedoms. At minimum, they could be viewed as resistance fighters for Canada and certainly should be treated no differently from allied resistance fighters in other countries who our political leaders have been so quick to compensate with Canadian taxpayer resources.
Compensating our merchant navy veterans for years of wrongful denial of equality is both a symbolic and tangible means by which we can thank fellow Canadians for their efforts in preserving the freedoms we enjoy today.
Consider that 12,000 men and women served in the merchant navy in World War II. Many were older than the average age of Canadians in the armed forces since many of these merchant mariners had also served Canada during World War I. Members of our merchant navy, in addition to playing a vital role in the transportation of supplies in support of the war effort in Europe, also defended Canada's shores during the battle of the Atlantic.
In my capacity as opposition critic for veterans affairs, I participated last year in ceremonies commemorating the 55th anniversary of the battle of the Atlantic. The battle of the Atlantic was the only battle of World War II that was waged close to Canada's shores. German submarines reached as far as the shores of Halifax and the Gulf of the St. Lawrence. Armed merchant navy carriers contributed significantly to turning the tide as the battle of the Atlantic was being won by the allies in 1943.
Perhaps politicians have chosen to ignore the plight of merchant navy veterans due to the comparative smallness of their numbers. The merchant navy was comprised of no more than 12,000 seafarers. Of the 12,000 who served in the merchant navy, 1,629 lost their lives in World War II, 8 of whom were women. This represents over 13% of the service or approximately 1 in 7.
Members of the merchant navy were not a world apart from those in the armed forces. It should be remembered that at the outbreak of World War II, the Royal Canadian Navy took control of all shipping. It should also be remembered that all who served in the merchant navy were volunteers. None were compelled to sail but most did. Once signed on, merchant navy seamen were subject to sail or jail orders just as the navy.
What was denied to the merchant navy veterans at war's end, such that they did not have the equality of post-war opportunity available to other veterans? The benefits denied are not minor and clearly their absence would have lifetime impacts. Merchant navy veterans received no financial assistance to attend university as did other war veterans. Many of the leaders in professions during the 1960s to the present are or were veterans who received such assistance.
Merchant navy veterans were not accorded priority in public service employment as were other returning veterans. After the war the employment of the public service offered the benefit of economic stability and the opportunity to re-establish one's life in an orderly fashion. It was a particularly important benefit remembered by those whose youth occurred during the great depression when employment in the public service was also often the only gainful employment available. The denial of this benefit to the merchant navy veterans had lifetime effects.
The third benefit denied to the merchant navy veterans was land or its cash equivalent. Returning veterans were provided with an opportunity to acquire housing under the Veterans Land Act as well as income support. The opportunity to acquire housing coupled with financial assistance to attend university, income support and priority in public service employment meant that many veterans could overcome the scars of war and look forward to stable family lives and careers. None of this was available to merchant navy veterans except in limited circumstances where such veterans were disabled.
That this wrong has not been addressed for nearly 55 years after the end of World War II is a national disgrace which will hopefully not continue. It is true that as of 1992 merchant navy veterans have essentially been “on equal footing” with other veterans in terms of benefits. Now with Bill C-61 they will be on equal footing under the same legislation and are therefore no longer symbolically separate but equal.
This still does not address the issue that the lives and families of every one of our merchant navy veterans have been scarred by a government imposed inequality of post-war opportunity.
There are several reasons given for this discriminatory treatment at war's end. Some argue that it was because there were many socialists in the merchant navy and it was believed by the government of the day that any support accorded merchant navy veterans would strengthen socialistic and pro-union sentiments. That these beliefs continued into the cold war of the fifties is understandable given the tenor of the times, though it does not make them right.
To this day I can advise the House that organizations representing merchant navy veterans represent a broad political spectrum that results from time to time in a degree of fractious discord. The fact that to this day merchant navy veterans have difficulty speaking consistently with one voice should not be a matter to be taken advantage of politically.
On occasion and quite recently I have been asked to detail my goals with respect to my current role as official opposition critic of veterans affairs. As has been publicly reported, I stated that one dimension of this portfolio, the same portfolio addressed by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, is that many of the files are not new. Many of these issues are not new. Some of these issues have been going on for 50 or 55 years, far too long.
For reasons best left to historians many of these issues that could have been addressed by governments 20 and 30 years ago were not addressed, let alone resolved. I support the bill as one small step toward resolving the merchant navy concerns and I encourage the government to do more.