NDVA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA DÉFENSE NATIONALE ET DES ANCIENS COMBATTANTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 26, 1998

• 0901

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.)): Welcome to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.

Who's going to be your lead speaker, gentlemen? Mr. Chadderton, would you like to introduce the people with you? Then we'll begin.

Mr. H. Clifford Chadderton (Consultant, Canadian Merchant Navy Veterans Association): All right, Mr. Chairman. The brief will be submitted by Aurele Ferlatte, who is the president of the Canadian Merchant Navy Veterans Association. Associated with us this morning as a witnesses is Osborne McLean. He's what they call the point man of the hunger strike. Eugene MacDonald is the treasurer of the Canadian Merchant Navy Veterans Association.

To commence the hearing, if I may—

The Chairman: Can I ask one thing? You're all very welcome, and we're pleased to hear your submission. As you may appreciate, several voices have approached this committee saying they speak for the merchant mariners. Quite frankly, the committee wishes that was not the case. It's always easy as an elected person if you're dealing with one voice speaking clearly for a group. However, that's not the case in this instance. Would you, for the record, speak clearly about who you do represent here today?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: Yes. I am an adviser and consultant to the Canadian Merchant Navy Veterans Association. The brief will be presented, as I mentioned, by Aurele Ferlatte, who is the president of that group.

In my research, Mr. Chairman, this is the largest single group of merchant navy veterans in Canada. Also, this group does not belong to the Merchant Navy Coalition.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: We're separate and apart.

The Chairman: Thank you for that clarification.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: Thank you, sir.

The Chairman: I appreciate that.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: May I refer the committee, as a start, to a very historic document? I left some copies with the secretary. It says “Property of H.C. Chadderton” on the front of it. Do we all have these documents?

The Chairman: The clerk has it right here. He's just going to distribute it.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: I think, Mr. Chairman, it would be useful just to start with this.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: This document is what's known as the source document for merchant navy benefits. As you will see from the front page, it was published by the Honourable Lionel Chevrier in 1945. For convenience, I have underlined or highlighted just those parts of it that I think are pertinent to today.

• 0905

On page 1, the title says “Canada's Merchant Seamen”. It was published by the Honourable Lionel Chevrier, who said that:

No body of men has contributed more to the prosecution of the war effort than those gallant seamen who man the ships of the Allied Merchant Navies, and to which Canada's contribution in ships and men has grown from small beginnings to now play a substantial role.

In 1945, the Minister of Transport was saying that no body of men has contributed more than the people who are represented here this morning.

On page 2, there's another highlight. I'll read it, if I may:

Nevertheless, all of us know that those seamen whose voyages and duties bring them in contact with the enemy, undergo desperate risk and hazards. The dangers they encounter are comparable with those experienced by the average man in uniform.

That sort of indicates the argument that's being put forward. On the right side of that page, I will quote from an Order in Council, which of course gives it tremendous status:

On May 19th, 1941, Order in Council P.C. 14/3550 was passed and read in part:-

That the Merchant Marine, on which our seaborne commerce depends, is, under present conditions, virtually an arm of our fighting services, and the provision of Merchant Seamen, their training, care and protection is essential to the proper conduct of the war, and vitally necessary to the keeping open of the sea lanes on which the successful outcome of the present conflict so largely depends.

In other words, we had an Order in Council back in 1941 that indicated to the minds of ministers of the Canadian government the value of the merchant seamen to the war effort.

The next underlining is a few pages on. The heading is “Merchant Seamen Special Bonus Order”. I'll quote the part that's relevant to today's proceedings:

...it is deemed advisable and equitable, in consideration of the essential services rendered by them, involving hardships and risk in many respects comparable to those met with by members of the Forces,

—underline that—

to offer certain additional benefits to those who have served in dangerous waters and are prepared to serve for the duration of the war if required.

—this is the most important statement I could put in front of your committee—

Such benefits should not be of the nature which would encourage Seamen to leave the industry at the end of the war to seek employment in other fields as the services of many skilled Seamen will be required if Canada is to maintain a Merchant Marine after the war.

That has always been interpreted in my mind as the Minister of Transport saying to the Canadian public and his colleagues that they will not give the merchant seamen the full benefits of other members of the armed forces for the specific reason—I repeat it—that to do so would encourage seamen to leave the industry at the end of the war to seek employment in other fields. The reason is because the services of many skilled seamen will be required if Canada is to maintain a merchant marine after the war.

Consequently, as you'll hear in the evidence, many merchant seamen stayed on to serve the Canadian government. Not only that, but by a government statement, the government withheld veterans' benefits so as to encourage these people to remain in the merchant navy.

Mr. Chairman, this is what's known in our circles, research circles, and veterans' circles as the source document for the government's plan in 1945. It indicated how valuable these people were to the war effort. But it also says at the end that they will not be offered the same benefits as veterans because the Canadian government needs them to man the merchant marine.

• 0910

That concludes what I have to say. I think now it would be up to Mr. Ferlatte, the president, to present the brief.

The Chairman: Before we go to Mr. Ferlatte, can I indicate to committee members that we also have a second witness who has requested through Mr. Goldring to appear? The committee agreed to hear him after this. He's Bill Riddell, president of the Merchant Navy Association. If we can keep that in mind, I will try as chair to make sure we allow a few minutes for Mr. Riddell. We'll keep that in mind with our questioning.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): He's the president of what association?

The Chairman: I'm told it's the Merchant Navy Association. The request came to me as the chair.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: This is the national—

The Chairman: Well, that's why I asked for the clarification at the beginning.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes, let's find out.

The Chairman: Could we have a reclarification, Mr. Chadderton?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: Yes, you can. Bill Riddell has worked closely in connection with and on behalf of merchant seaman for many years. His organization, as I understand it, does not have the word “Canadian” in it. Consequently, his organization is representing persons in Canada who are members of the allied merchant navy.

The Chairman: Right. That's it. I read it. It's the Merchant Navy Association. He's a Canadian citizen. He has the right to request an appearance before this committee. He's been properly granted that right, and at the end of this presentation we'll welcome him. My only point is that we'll need to leave some time for Mr. Riddell.

I would like to ask the presenters something. I'm not sure how many of you have presented before committees. I suspect you have. I know Mr. Chadderton's a veteran of this, as well as of the war, obviously.

Rather than reading us any long submission, I wonder whether you could speak to it. If you've submitted anything ahead of time, then we have had the opportunity to read it. I think the round of questioning from the members is very important. Sometimes delegations use up so much of their time in long-drawn-out presentations that we don't get to have adequate questioning.

Just with that bit of a comment, I would go now to you, sir, and welcome your presentation.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: May I say, Mr. Chairman, that it's only seven and a half pages.

The Chairman: That's fine. It's sort of friendly advice from the chair so we can get to some questions. Thank you very much. We welcome your presentation.

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte (President, Canadian Merchant Navy Veterans Association): It's just that, normally, if I had known you wanted me to make a summary, I would have prepared a summary. I apologize.

The Chairman: I made that point at the last meeting to Mr. Chadderton, so I assumed he would pass it on.

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: Right.

The Chairman: You're welcome.

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: Well, this submission is in two parts. Part one has comments concerning the omnibus bill. Part two has comments concerning retroactivity with respect to payments of war disability pensions or war veterans allowance and the grant in lieu of benefits paid to members of the Canadian Armed Forces on their return and rehabilitation following service in World War Two.

The following information was agreed to at a meeting held in Saint John, New Brunswick, on October 30, 1998. This meeting was held in the presence of Mr. Robert Wood, parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and Mr. Clifford Chadderton, chairman of the National Council of Veteran Associations in Canada.

We consider it would be—

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): I have a point of order.

The Chairman: There's a point of order from Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I realize that we discussed the omnibus bill before. I could not receive a copy of it, so I can't be a party to it. But if this bill was discussed in a meeting in New Brunswick, were there minutes kept of the meeting that I could be apprised of?

The Chairman: Mr. Wood, can you help?

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): I understand Mr. Goldring's concern, but no, I haven't even seen the bill. Nobody has seen the bill. That's not the common practice. The common practice, Mr. Chair, is to confer with various interest groups that might be taken care of in the bill. We did that through Mr. Chadderton, Mr. Ferlatte, and Mr. McLean. That's where it stands. I couldn't tell you what's in the bill. I'm afraid I'm in the same situation as Mr. Goldring.

The Chairman: That's right. The bill has not been tabled in the House. Until it's tabled in the House, one is, to some extent, speaking of the hypothetical.

You've had input. As has been explained, it's quite proper that until the bill is tabled in the House, none of us, including Mr. Goldring, can have a copy of it, obviously.

Okay. We'll go back to your comments.

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: Very well.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: I think you might just skip part one then, Aurele.

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: Very well. We'll skip part one and go to page 3. This is part two, which is retroactive payments.

• 0915

The 1992 amendments to the Merchant Navy Veteran and Civilian War-related Benefits Act provided legislated benefits for both war disability pension and war veterans allowance for former members of Canada's merchant navy.

The war disability pension. Prior to the enactment of this legislation, pensions could be paid to merchant seamen only if disability or death was the “direct result of enemy action or counteraction taken against the enemy...”.

The war veterans allowance. This allowance was paid to merchant seamen only when they served at sea for a period of at least six months and made at least one trip through dangerous waters. Such “dangers waters” were generally designated as “outside the territorial waters of Canada”.

Members of the armed forces of Canada were entitled to pension for any injury, disease or death incurred during or attributable to military service anywhere in the world, including Canada. An example is a member of the military forces injured in a civilian traffic accident in Toronto. This was known as the “insurance principle”.

Members of the armed forces could qualify for war veterans allowance on a “means test” basis as long as he or she had overseas service.

Case history one. A merchant seaman was injured in rough water while the convoy was under submarine attack. He was turned down for pension in 1946 on grounds that direct action with the enemy did not involve his ship. A pension was granted in 1993. If he had been a member of the Royal Canadian Navy, serving on the same ship, he could have received pension from the date of his discharge. The pension assessment was 30%. The estimated loss, compared with a member of the armed forces during a 49-year period, would be approximately $47,700.

A member of the Canadian army injured in a similar accident, whether caused by military or civilian circumstances, while serving in Canada would have qualified for the same pension on the grounds that it was incurred during or attributable to service.

Case history two. A merchant seaman served for 30 months on coastal vessels. Due to age, infirmity, and disabilities he became a welfare case in 1950. He did not qualify under the Merchant Navy Veteran and Civilian War-related Benefits Act until 1992. It is estimated that the loss in benefits, compared to a member of the armed forces, would be approximately $42,000.

A member of the armed forces who made one duty trip between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island would qualify for war veterans allowance, compared to a merchant seaman who would require six months and at least one trip through “dangerous waters”.

Summary. Although there are no accurate statistics, nor any way to determine such, it is estimated that the average merchant navy veteran would have been deprived of benefits between the date of discharge in World War II and the coming into force of the 1992 legislation: pension, $47,000; or war veterans allowance, $42,000.

In addition to the discrimination in the area of war disability pension and war veterans allowance, former members of the merchant navy were deprived of the post-discharge benefits available to members of the armed forces as follows, by average of supplementary benefits: clothing allowance was $100; rehabilitation grants, $150; transportation to place of enlistment, $500; war service gratuities, $2,500; re-establishment credit, $2,500; reinstatement or preference in civilian employment, estimated at $5,000; out of work allowance, $3,640; educational assistance, vocational on-the-job training, university, estimated at around $5,000; treatment for pension disability, including prosthetic appliance, estimated at $5,000; Veterans Land Act or housing assistance, estimated at $5,000; business or professional loans, interest only, $200; waiting return allowance, estimated at $1,000. It gives a total of $30,590.

In addition, veterans were entitled to a number of other benefits, including veterans independence program; prisoner of war benefits; education assistance for children of the war dead; legal assistance for preparation of pension claims; counselling and referrals.

The above figures are based on the fact that a former member of the merchant navy would be in receipt of either a war disability pension or war veterans allowance. He could not receive both.

The loss in retroactivity benefits, therefore, is estimated as follows: war disability pension, $47,700, and supplementary benefits, $30,590, for a total of $78,290; WVA recipient, 42,000, and supplementary benefits, $30,790, for a total of $72,590.

• 0920

Recommendation. It is recommended that the government pay to all former members of the merchant navy who qualify for war disability pension or war veterans allowance a grant in lieu of (a), loss due to failure to place merchant navy service on par with service in the armed forces, and thus grant entitlement to the same benefits for pension or war veterans allowance; and (b), supplementary benefits available to members of the armed forces and denied to former members of the merchant navy.

It is evident that no accurate measurement could be devised to determine the amount that would represent fair compensation in regard to the failure to permit merchant seamen to qualify under the pension and war veterans allowance legislation and for supplementary benefits. It is proposed, however, that a scale of payments be devised based on the length of service in the merchant navy and other relevant factors. A merchant seaman who has made one trip, including in the coastal waters of Canada, should be entitled to an award of not less than $5,000 with a maximum award being established at $30,000.

Recommendation two. It is recommended that the above government pay to all former members of the merchant navy who could not, on the basis of a review of facts, qualify for either war disability pension or war veterans allowance grant in lieu of supplementary benefits, provided such merchant seaman has made one trip, including coastal waters of Canada, an award of not less than $5,000 with a maximum award to be established at $15,000.

This presentation was prepared by myself and Mr. Cliff Chadderton. I thank you for your time.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, sir.

Is there another part of the presentation?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: I would just like to draw the attention of the committee, Mr. Chairman, to another historic document. We put it up in front of the television set. It shows the location of 383 ships that were sunk in the Gulf of St. Lawrence between 1940 and 1945. It really tells another story, that at the time Canada was sending its merchant navy largely out of areas such as Montreal, Sorel, or what have you. Because the Germans had such an effective blockade in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, which of course brought the war very close to home, they began convoying out of Saint John in the Bay of Fundy or the Bedford Basin in Halifax.

If you have an opportunity, ladies and gentlemen, to look at that chart, it's the only one, I can assure you, that's in existence. I had the privilege of using it as a presentation to a parliamentary committee in 1945.

The Chairman: That's certainly historic. I must confess, I wasn't aware of that degree of activity in the gulf. I knew there was some. Thank you very much.

Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): You weren't born then.

The Chairman: I'm glad I wasn't born then, and we're grateful for those who were and served their country.

Thank you very much for the presentation. I'll go now to a round of questions. Just before I begin, if in fact we're to have time for Mr. Riddell, as the committee wants, we should try to wrap up the round of questioning in an hour to allow him a brief presentation and then a few questions from the committee as well.

With that, I'll go to Mr. Goldring for 10 minutes, please.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much for your presentation.

I'd like first to ask Mr. Chadderton to review four points so that we can crystallize and understand, if we can simplify it at all, the concerns of the merchant navy. What I've done is listed four issues here: to be recognized as war veterans; to have prisoner of war benefits; to be compensated for years of denial of equality; and to have recognition on ceremonial days. Does that cover it overall under four main headings? Of course, there are many subs to those, but we're looking for a form of compensation and the recognition, as well as prisoner of war benefits that were not received. Am I correct on this?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: The 1992 act requires some updating, but generally it provides the first two provisions. But if you wouldn't mind repeating them, Mr. Goldring....

• 0925

Mr. Peter Goldring: To be recognized as war veterans—

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: No, excuse me, I'm wrong. That is the purpose of the current legislation, according to the statement of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. The merchant navy people feel they have not been recognized as veterans, and it was the view of the Department of Veterans Affairs, at least as communicated to me when we were briefed on the new act, that the purpose was to move the legislation from the current act, which is called the Merchant Navy Veteran and Civilian War-related Benefits Act, over to the veterans acts. If that is done, I think it accomplishes, as much as anyone could, the recognition of merchant seamen as veterans.

Mr. Peter Goldring: But right now it's a concern. You hope it will be covered by it.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: Yes. It's not a major concern of this group, I might add, but—

Mr. Peter Goldring: The second one is full prisoner of war benefits.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: Yes. If we took the 1992 legislation and we were to rely on the briefings I was given concerning the new legislation, I think that objective would be met.

Mr. Peter Goldring: The next one, then, is to have recognition on ceremonial days.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: As I mentioned a number of times during various presentations, if you're talking about November 11, that is not a government responsibility. From time immemorial, the Royal Canadian Legion has been responsible for the November 11 ceremonies, and it is certainly the feeling of many veterans' organizations, including the national council of which I'm the chairman, and also Mr. Ferlatte's group, that this should be left with the Royal Canadian Legion.

There are other ceremonial occasions where, in recent years, all of the people who were left out, such as the aboriginals and the merchant seamen, were included.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Is there not a feeling that they would like to have more recognition on ceremonial occasions?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: I'd leave that to Mr. Ferlatte.

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: Again, I think you've wrapped it up quite nicely as far as the legion is concerned, that they are the ones who are responsible for that. But as far as we're concerned, when government does have special functions, we would like to be recognized at such.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Yes.

Then, the final one, of course, is to be compensated for years of denial of equality.

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: Yes.

Mr. Peter Goldring: So we could summarize that these are four concerns of the merchant navy organization.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: I would like to add one point. When this brief was written, I thought there was an understanding as to what “retroactivity” meant. In talking with the minister yesterday, it became very clear that these people are not asking that existing legislation have a retroactive clause in it; they're really talking about a lump sum in lieu of the benefits they didn't get.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Right.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: I have to say that, because the minister's staff seemed to be hung up on the word “retroactivity”. So although it is in this brief, it really means “lump sum”.

Mr. Peter Goldring: That's what I'm going to follow into next, this word “retroactive.” I myself spoke to the minister last night, and this certainly seemed to be a stumbling block with the minister.

Would it not be better to be considered to be an ex gratia payment, a one-time payment? Would that not be a way of looking at it?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: Well, it has certainly been the procedure the government has used on at least two occasions of which I have knowledge: one was to reimburse the Japanese-Canadians, and the second one the victims of the drug Thalidomide, what the Department of Justice called an ex gratia or an extraordinary payment.

Mr. Peter Goldring: In your mind, would “ex gratia” be more palatable to the minister? Do you think he might give a different comment to it?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: No.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Keep in mind, of course, on retroactivity, the members of Parliament recently received a pay raise that was retroactive. So there is retroactivity.

What would your comment be on that? Would you feel that retroactivity is possible?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: No, I think we're mixing apples and oranges here, if I can use that expression. Should the government approve a pay raise, for example, in connection with the recent human rights decision, that might be written into the legislation, and it may be the same thing for MPs' pensions.

• 0930

We are not looking for that type of thing. We're not saying that something is in existence now that could be made retroactive. We're saying that there's nothing in existence now by way of compensation to this group, and we're suggesting that you could not make any current legislation retroactive because there's nothing to base it on. That's why we say “in lieu of”. You can use the term “ex gratia”. We prefer the term “extraordinary payment”.

Mr. Peter Goldring: All right. To clarify, I think, for many people, myself included, would you have a rough idea of what percentage of the merchant navy ships were armed? If they were armed, were the members of the merchant navy trained with regard to those arms? How much training would they have received? In other words, it seems to me that the merchant navy was not only shipping the supplies to Europe in order to fight the war but also were armed themselves against the enemy. So does that not make them a para-military or a military organization by that mere fact?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: Mr. Chairman, firstly, I would refer you back to the source document and the first subheading, which is “An Unarmed Force”. There were what were called DEMS gunners on merchant ships, but they were naval personnel. Some merchant navy people did have training in gunnery, but largely they were an unarmed force.

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: I would like to add to this. I have here a document, which is the merchant navy A/A gunnery course certificate of proficiency. Mr. McMartin, who is here, was a fireman, and he was trained in gunnery, because along with the DEMS, they also had to assist. In many instances they were there right along side them.

Mr. Peter Goldring: That's my point, that in some cases they were trained. Were there instances where they actually fired any guns, small arms?

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: Oh, yes, definitely.

Mr. Peter Goldring: If there were, it would seem to me they were as thick into the military as anybody else was. Would that not be an assumption, that they were prepared to fight?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: Yes. I just point again to the source document. It has been a very sore point, Mr. Chairman, that, as you can see, the minister responsible for the merchant navy in 1945 was categorizing them as an unarmed force, which I think created a misconception. They were armed.

Mr. Osborne McLean (Member, Canadian Merchant Navy Veterans Association): Could I add one thing?

Mr. Peter Goldring: Yes.

Mr. Osborne McLean: There's a gentleman in Saint John, New Brunswick, by the name of George Humphrey, who we fought for for four to five years because he lost his hearing from using the guns. We got him $45,500 in back pay, or whatever they want to call it, plus a pension of $1,000 a month.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Right.

The Chairman: Mr. Goldring, thank you. That's your 10 minutes.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Okay.

The Chairman: Now, before I go to Mr. Laurin, I want to indicate that we have a submission from our other witness. The House of Commons obviously operates under both official languages, including its committees, and it's proper to have submissions submitted in both official languages. Some of the information we received today was not submitted en français. But with the indulgence of Mr. Laurin, we're going to proceed. On our side we also have members whose first language is indeed French, rather than English. So, Mr. Laurin and other colleagues whose first language is French, we'll attempt to make sure that all documents are properly presented in both official languages.

I want to go to Mr. Laurin for 10 minutes of questioning.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: With respect, Mr. Chairman, we sent the document over. It came back from the committees branch saying they did not have time—

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Chadderton—

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: However, we did, and we do have it available in both languages.

The Chairman: Mr. Chadderton, I wasn't referring to your document, so that's all right.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: Oh, I'm sorry. I just wanted to make sure that you knew our document—

• 0935

The Chairman: I was aware of that. That's why I was non-specific.

Now I'm going to go to Mr. Laurin.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I am once again willing to make allowances, but I must point out that such situations arise over and over again, making Quebeckers feel that they are not on an equal footing with other Canadians. We have to make the same demands too often. I'm not blaming you personally. If the witness had submitted his brief far enough in advance, it would have been our committee's duty to have it translated and to hand out copies in both official languages to us.

[English]

Mr. George Proud: I have a point of order. Could you get him to turn up the volume?

The Chairman: Yes, it's a little bit low in the translation.

Excusez-moi, monsieur Laurin.

Unfortunately, we're having a couple of technical difficulties here today. I would ask everybody's indulgence. I don't know if the translators can help us with volume. They're saying no. We'll just have to listen as closely as—

Mr. George Proud: That's pretty good.

The Chairman: That's better than it was, yes.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: Monsieur Laurin, are you aware that we—

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: I'm not making accusations about you.

[English]

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: But we did provide it in French, that's my point.

The Chairman: If I might bring a little order to this discussion, the—

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: I have here a document—

[English]

The Chairman: Monsieur Laurin, from the chair, please, if I just might help, the witnesses before us now submitted their documents to the clerk in English, which is the right of any witness to do. The clerk then arranges for translation. My earlier comment was that the second witness has just now brought in a document that we don't have time to translate. There is a translated copy of this presentation available for monsieur Laurin. This delegation has met the requirements, and we appreciate that. So my comment was to the second witness.

Okay, back to you, monsieur Laurin.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Chairman, I have received the French version of the document submitted by Mr. Ferlatte, the President. However, I have received only the English version of the brief filed by Mr. Bill Riddell. I don't want to make accusations against Mr. Riddell, and I understand that, if he doesn't know French, it is impossible for him to draft a brief in that language. But we have our own translation services, and if documents are submitted to us far enough in advance, they are translated so that committee members are able to work in the language of their choice. I regret that it is so often necessary to demand that this be done, and that we don't always feel we are equals in this big beautiful country that is Canada, where Quebeckers frequently feel they are on the sidelines. That was the point of my comment, Mr. Chairman.

I'll go on to my questions now. I am unable, from the documents presented to us by the witnesses, to understand clearly the distinction that they are making between the civilian merchant seamen and the other category of merchant seamen. Is this distinction based solely on where they were navigating? For example, is this distinction drawn between seamen who were travelling in so-called dangerous waters and those who were sailing in coastal waters? Is that what justifies treating them differently?

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: It makes little difference whether the seamen sailed from Trois-Rivières to Pointe-au-Père or in the Gulf, in Newfoundland or anywhere else. No distinction is made between the two groups. In 1942-43, one could not even sail as far as the Port of Montreal, which had to be closed down because there were so many German submarines in that area. They sank 22 vessels in the space of two or three months, which proves that the situation was fairly critical at that time.

Mr. René Laurin: In the documents that were presented to us at other meetings of this committee, a distinction was made with the veterans of the Merchant Navy, who ended up being granted the same status as the veterans of the Armed Forces.

• 0940

This meant that, under legislation adopted in 1992, they had access to disability pensions, war allowances, a compensation payment and the Veterans' Independence Program.

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: Yes.

Mr. René Laurin: I've also read that there was another group, made up of civilian merchant seamen who had served during the Second World War but did not have access to the same rights and privileges, even though they had been taken prisoners.

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: I don't know which document you mean.

Mr. René Laurin: I think that it was in a paper prepared by our Library of Parliament research officer.

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: I believe that the only difference is that they were in uniform, whereas the merchant seamen wore civilian dress. We were finally granted the status of veteran in 1992, and it was decided that we should receive pensions and have the right to wear medals. The unresolved issue is that we have still not been granted the same benefits that were offered to those who had served in the Army, in the Navy or in the Air Force when the war ended. The reason for this is that Lionel Chevrier and C.D. Howe, under the government of Louis Saint-Laurent, preferred that the merchant seamen stay on their vessels until they could be sold. They then privatized these operations and hired people from developing countries, to whom they paid lower wages than those paid to Canadians, whom they simply kicked out.

Mr. René Laurin: But why did some of them wear a uniform while others did not?

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: In the Merchant Navy, only the officers wore a uniform. The seamen were not in uniform and were considered to be civilians. We were not issued any clothing; we had to buy our own. The other fellows enjoyed all the benefits and were clothed by the government, while we were not. We were told that we were being paid a little bit more and that we had to buy our own rubber boots.

Mr. René Laurin: Since 1992, have all the seamen of the Merchant Navy been treated equally, without any distinction?

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: In 1992, we were granted nearly all the same benefits, with the exception of the benefits granted to veterans after the war.

Mr. René Laurin: I was not comparing merchant seamen with veterans. Do all merchant seamen have the same rights and privileges?

I realize that you are demanding they receive the same rights and privileges as veterans, but I would like to get back to the question of the possible existence of the two groups of merchant seamen mentioned in the document to which I referred. Are there what could be called civilian merchant seamen and non-civilian merchant seamen?

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: There is only one group.

[English]

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: I must compliment, Mr. Laurin on his knowledge. You're quite right, sir. Under the present act, there are two groups. There are the merchant seamen and the other one,

[Translation]

the civilian merchant seamen and the salt water fishermen.

[English]

In other words, it's the civilian merchant seamen and the salt water fishermen. You're quite correct, sir, they're two different groups.

Under the new legislation, this group to which you're referring—that's the civilian merchant seamen—will not be included. They will not be put under the veterans act. Okay, sir?

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: We're getting somewhere at last. Was a distinction made between the seamen who sailed in salt water or in so often called dangerous waters and those who only went up and down the coasts? Was that the difference between the two groups?

• 0945

[English]

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: Yes, in the meaning of the act, Mr. Laurin, part I covers merchant navy veterans, as we call them, who had service in what were called dangerous waters. In part I.1 of the act, the civilian merchant seamen and salt water fishermen are pretty well as described, but they were in the vernacular, if I can use that term, called “coasters”. They were up and down the coast, but not on overseas voyages, sir.

[Translation]

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: We might give the example of the ferry between Matane and Baie-Comeau whose crew, which was made up of civilians, was nevertheless in danger during the war. I was unaware of all the details and I'm sorry to have given you an incorrect answer. Please excuse me.

Mr. René Laurin: Okay.

[English]

The Chairman: I'm going to give Mr. Laurin another minute, because at the start of this period there was some confusion over the documents.

So, Mr. Laurin, you have another minute.

[Translation]

Do you have another question?

Mr. René Laurin: From what I was able to read in the document that you presented this morning, you do not seem to be in a hurry to have a particular part of the bill adopted. It seems you wish to request that some amounts be paid to you now, but you are prepared to wait for the other amounts which you are demanding. The introduction of your brief is not very clear on this point. Could you explain to me, in your own words, exactly what you mean by saying that you want to see this part applied immediately, but that the other part is less urgent for you?

[English]

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: Yes, sir. When we wrote this brief, we had been briefed or advised by officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs about the new omnibus bill. We wanted to split off that omnibus bill, leaving those parts of it that dealt with widows and prisoners of war to go through immediately, withholding those parts that dealt with the merchant seamen. However, as was brought out by members of the committee, the committee has not seen the bill. So what we suggested was let's drop part one of our submission.

I assume, Mr. Chairman—and I got an affirmative from Mr. Mifflin yesterday—the bill will go to first then second reading, and then it will be referred to this committee. At that time we may be back before you to express these views. But I believe those members who brought it to our attention are quite correct; the members have not seen the bill. In other words, we probably know more about it then they do.

The Chairman: I understand the bill is to be tabled on December 1, and as you indicate, Mr. Chadderton, it will come to this committee for study and submissions.

Thank you, Mr. Laurin.

Now, I'll go to the government side for 10 minutes, starting with the parliamentary secretary for veterans affairs, Bob Wood.

Mr. Bob Wood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to carry on where Mr. Laurin left off. As you know, gentlemen, past presidents of your association have pushed hard for six years to get the omnibus bill legislation the minister is about to introduce. I'm wondering why, now that those efforts are on the verge of becoming reality, you would want the minister to withdraw all the amendments you've been trying to get. Is the message here that it's all or nothing? Because if it is, you know, sometimes it's nothing. I think the point is in asking the government to withdraw a bill that hasn't been introduced, you're assuming a new bill will be introduced giving you retroactive compensation. And gentlemen, that's a heck of an assumption.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: If I could answer that, the process that took place was that the minister suggested veterans organizations be briefed on the new legislation. We were briefed on the new legislation. We were told those parts of it that dealt with merchant seamen would not provide additional benefits, they would merely classify them as veterans. Our feeling was, why can't they let the part of the bill that deals with other matters go through, and hold off the merchant seamen thing, because there were no benefits arising from it. However, subsequent to that we've come to the conclusion that the parliamentary process should be followed. That is, when it comes before you after second reading, that's when we will come in and suggest why we think the merchant seamen part might be set aside until we deal with the lump sum payment proposal.

• 0950

Mr. Bob Wood: Well, you know, Mr. Chadderton and Mr. Ferlatte, the Department of Veterans Affairs has said for years that merchant navy veterans are veterans and that the changes in the omnibus bill are symbolic. As I read on page 2 of your brief, you agree that the legislation isn't needed to correct any material deficiencies in the 1992 legislation. So all the talk about merchant navy veterans being denied benefits because of flaws in the legislation must have been just that, all talk and very little substance. Is that not the clear conclusion from your comments?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: I think there's a great deal of truth in that. The minister announced at the legion convention that merchant seamen would be given the status of veterans by moving their legislation into the veterans' legislation field. That was symbolic, and that's what I was told in the briefing. However, I think we might ease the concern of the committee this morning by saying we're quite prepared to drop our part one. In other words, we're quite prepared to support the bill as it stands and let the minister go ahead and put it before Parliament.

We may raise our objections if it comes back to the committee after second reading, sir.

Mr. Bob Wood: That's fine. That's what it's all about.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: Thank you.

Mr. Bob Wood: Your primary demand, obviously, is for retroactive compensation, and we've heard compelling arguments about the hardships suffered by members of the merchant navy both during and after World War II. I understand the points you're trying to make, but I'm not sure we can rewrite history with a cash payment. Furthermore, I know for a fact that no other allied country has done this. I would like to maybe challenge the witnesses to name one country that has given or even considered giving the type of compensation they are demanding.

As an aside, Mr. Chairman, I think we should also hear from witnesses from the Department of Veterans Affairs in future so that they can explain and provide us with the documentation that refutes any claim that other countries have given retroactive compensation to their merchant mariners.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: I don't think, or at least I have never said, that any other country has done it, and the reason is, in my understanding, members of the British merchant navy, for example, were covered the same as veterans were, practically from the end of World War II. I have a document here that I got yesterday from the merchant navy association in the United States. They have had complete coverage since 1988 and partial coverage going back many years. So there was no need for either the British or the Americans to do anything retroactively, because their merchant navy people were covered during the last 10 to 15 years, at least.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Wood, do you have any further questions?

Mr. Bob Wood: I have one more, Mr. Chairman.

My question obviously has to do with the question of hunger strikes. I don't approve of them, because it is a dangerous thing to do and it leaves actually no room for any compromise. I've heard comparisons of this situation to the Canadians imprisoned in Brazil who were on a hunger strike to gain their release to Canada. I think that comparison is a little invalid. These men are not in prison; they are not oppressed; they are not being denied their right to a fair hearing of their grievances, as we see by their appearance here today. What they are saying is, give us what we want or we will die.

Mr. Olmstead was here a few weeks ago, and he said he was not in favour of this hunger strike tactic. I know you all respect Mr. Olmstead.

My question is this. You've had the opportunity to state your case to this committee and were talking to the minister, to the media, and to the Canadian people. If you don't get the settlement you want and you go on a hunger strike, don't you think this is inherently undemocratic or even un-Canadian?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: I'd like to answer and then turn it to the merchant navy.

• 0955

I have never been in favour of the hunger strike, and if this committee is prepared to give study to this, and this committee has indicated it is, after this hearing I will try to convince these people that they should give you time to do your job, and the hunger strike can be put off. I can't say they should put it off indefinitely, but as an adviser and a consultant, I would think we now have achieved two things: a meeting with the minister, and a meeting with this committee, which I know was not easy to arrange.

Mr. Bob Wood: And you're going to be asked to come back again.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: Well, if the bill is referred to this committee, then I think it would be proper for this group to come back again.

Mr. Bob Wood: Yes, you will, because I made that commitment to Mr. Ferlatte and Mr. McLean and Mr. Hope. When the bill comes before the committee, you will be called back as a witness, and we will gladly pay your transportation here. I've made that commitment, and that still stands.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Wood. I want to indicate that's quite right, and we look forward to that.

As for the hunger strike, there would have only had to have been a request to appear today, and that would have been granted, as it has been with Mr. Riddell. I want to be clear that at any committee I chair and will chair, the witnesses do not have to take any action other than to put a proper request, and I'll make sure that in due course they appear, as is their right as Canadian citizens.

I want to go to Mr. Proud now for the last three minutes.

Mr. George Proud: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, gentlemen, here before this committee this morning.

I guess I can say, for good or bad, I'm one of the only remaining persons on this committee who was here when the 1992 legislation passed. I was part of the process myself, with Mr. Mifflin and Mr. Rompkey from the Liberal side, Les Benjamin and sometimes John Brewin from the NDP, and Stan Darling and Arnold Malone and others from the Conservative Party.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: And Mr. Merrithew.

Mr. George Proud: He was the minister.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: That's right.

Mr. George Proud: I was going to get to him in a minute. He was a good minister; let me add that.

One of the things that was brought up at that time was retroactivity.

I ask you, Mr. Chadderton, do you think if we had really pushed at that time for what you're looking for today, we would have got the bill passed?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: I do not think so. I think the 1992 argument was a very fractious one. We met many, many hours with Mr. Broadbent who was at that time the deputy minister. He was dug in against it, and I think the parliamentary committee, as a matter of fact, did succeed.

Had we added to that the question of a lump sum payment in lieu of benefits that had not been received, I think perhaps the 1992 legislation may well have stalled on that issue.

I'm giving you my very honest answer. However, that does not mean that now, in 1998, the issue is not a very strong one and should not be brought forward.

Mr. George Proud: I have no argument with that, except to say, as has been pointed out by my colleague, no other country has done this. I don't know of any other.

You mentioned the United States, for instance. The United States has a bill before the House at the present time. There was a group of people in the merchant navy that were left out. They didn't qualify. They were in from May 1945 until 1946, when the Second World War actually ended. They are going to be taken in under this new piece of legislation, and this new legislation says that benefits may not be paid to any person as a result of the enactment of this act for any period before the date of the enactment of this act. So that means they will not get any back pay or lump sum payment. They will come in the same as the merchant seamen who came in in 1988, and it will go from there.

I am told there have been more than 200 changes in veterans' benefits over the years and not once were any of these made retroactive. No matter what you call this, whether you call this a “grant in lieu of” or whatever it may be, it's still going to be deemed retroactive pay by other groups.

There are other groups out there looking for, first of all, recognition, to be recognized as veterans, and secondly, for some kind of compensation. We also must remember that 70% to 75% of armed forces veterans don't get any benefits at all, have never applied for any benefits.

So I ask you, do you think even though you're asking for a grant in lieu of, or whatever the case may be, this will not be deemed to be retroactivity? The media is going to spin it that way; the department will look at it that way. I don't know where to go from here with it.

• 1000

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: I will speak, and then I think the members of the group should speak.

Perhaps we were in error in calling it retroactivity in the first place, because something has to be retroactive from a position, and there is no position at all in veterans' legislation that provides for the hiatus during which these people did not receive this benefit. I think it has to be put forward as being totally separate from any piece of legislation.

That's why we're saying that it's really a humanitarian issue, if you like, if you take a look at the fact that veterans benefited, according to our figures, sometimes to the tune of maybe $80,000 or $90,000 more than merchant seamen did. Even though we are all getting toward the end of the line, there's no reason the government could not say at this time, this is an extraordinary situation, and we're going to cover it with an extraordinary payment.

The other point that I think has to be clear—

Mr. George Proud: There's definitely no reason the government couldn't do it if it wanted to.

But I ask this question—

The Chairman: This is your last one, Mr. Proud.

Mr. George Proud: It has never been done before for any other group. I just don't know how we're going to get around this, to make it retroactive or a grant in lieu, whatever you want to call it, for one group of people, and there's another group of people out there who are not getting it. That's my question and my comment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Proud.

I'm now going to go to Mr. Stoffer from the New Democratic Party for 10 minutes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I wish to welcome you and to offer congratulations on your effort on behalf of Gordon Earle, our defence critic for the New Democratic Party. Unfortunately, he couldn't be here, and he asked me to take his place for this morning's meeting.

I just want to look at this from a historical perspective. First of all, it's nice to know that I'm probably the youngest MP here. I was born in Holland, and in 1945 it was the Canadian army that liberated my parents. My father was a prisoner of war at that time and was in the Dutch resistance. He keeps telling me this story time and again. There was a young man from Ontario—I believe from Sudbury—who was the same age as my father, and my father in his broken English said to him, “Why did you and your country help us? What was your purpose?” I'll get back to this later, but his answer was, “We heard you needed some help.” It was a very simplistic answer to a very complicated question. A young man from Ontario, Canada, told my father in 1945, “We heard you needed some help.” That stuck with my father and my mother for a long time. Sorry.

The Chairman: Thank you for sharing that story.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'm not finished.

The Chairman: I know you're not finished, but I think that's touching for all of us as Canadians to hear. Would you like to continue?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes. It happens every time I make a speech on veterans' day, the same thing.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: Mr. Chairman, as a man who has one leg buried in Holland, I appreciate your comments, sir.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: My father then told my mother, “If that country has military personnel like that, imagine what kind of country that would be.” In 1956, when I was eight months old, we moved to Canada. We came through pier 21 in Halifax and went right to New Westminister.

In order to repay Canada, my parents ran a group home for over 25 years and looked after well over 400 children. I spoke to my father and mother yesterday—thank God they're still alive—and told them what was happening. I told them of our meeting yesterday outside on Parliament Hill. He said, “Well, Peter, I guess I have this opportunity through you to tell them it looks like you need some help.” I have the opportunity as a member of Parliament to actually try to do that.

I'm certainly not going to go into the politics of the problem. There's no question you folks have been battling this since the war ended. Although I personally don't agree with hunger strikes either, because they affect so many other people, you've struggled in a democracy for so long, and you've tried everything you can up to this point to get your message across, but past and present governments just haven't seemed to listen.

My main critic area is fisheries and oceans. With the downturn of the fishery, I have witnessed people whose whole livelihood, in their perception, has been taken away. Their dignity and hope has been dissipated, and they are committing suicide. We've had a rash of suicides in Nova Scotia over the last six months. We've had a rash of suicides on Vancouver Island of aboriginal people as well, because their hope and their dignity is gone. What my parents have said is they would like to put some hope and dignity back into our merchant marines and to our navy.

• 1005

My question to you, Mr. McLean—I know you've been very silent and it's hard for you to do—is why in your opinion...? And, first of all, on behalf of all Dutch immigrants in this country and the Queen of Holland—I'm sure I can speak for her—we want to thank you for your war efforts in liberating our country and all of Europe.

Why do you think that past and present governments have been so stubborn about addressing this issue?

The Chairman: Mr. McLean.

Mr. Osborne McLean: It's a pleasure to be here today, and I didn't think I ever would be. My family back home want me to come home; they said you'll never meet that committee and the Minister of Veterans Affairs will never give in to you. We've been fighting for years to try to get all governments to recognize us. We've done everything in speaking to them.

I agree with Bob Woods—I agree with all of you—on the hunger strike. When I was a boy of 16 and fought for this country, I was prepared to die for this country to give you people the jobs you have today. I was only a boy. Can you imagine? I had become the youngest Canadian chief steward in the merchant navy at the age of 18 and looked after 68 in a crew and 11 gunners. I took what they call a first aid course, a flash one. I looked after all the medical supplies. We had 11 navy gunners on our ship. I'd give them medicals and I looked after them. But after the war they got everything and Ossie McLean never even got a thank you.

The reason I'm on Parliament Hill is we have men and women who are in their seventies and eighties who are not lucky enough to have the health that Ossie McLean has, or Randolph Hope and the rest of my comrades behind me here have. They're not healthy enough to do what we're doing. So I think by what we've done so far on this Hill, we've brought this to the attention of the minister, to Mr. Bob Woods, and to you gentlemen here.

I don't care what anybody says. I think the hunger strike has caused some movement in this government. And if you people here today can convince me that this will go through the process and we'll get what we deserve...all we're asking for is the money we were denied for 53 years.

I worked for Irving Pulp and Paper, and I don't mind telling you a very good friend of mine used to work in the storeroom, working his way through college. I think all of you know him, the late Tom Bell. He became a judge, and he was also the whip for the Conservative Party. Another good friend of mine, and I don't want to mention any names, was in the army. Tom Bell had to work his way through college; the fellow in the army got a college grant and everything.

I went to Veterans Affairs to see what I could do. I was also a contractor; I was building houses for the veterans. I said, what the hell, I'm a veteran too. I went to Veterans Affairs in Saint John, and they said, “Yes, what's your regimental number?” I said “I'm merchant navy”. “Have a nice day.”

Getting back to the NDP, I was on one of the first ships that went to Hamburg, Germany, with food supplies. I think it was Christmas, in 1945. On Christmas Eve, Tom Bell, the chief wireless operator, and I—we sailed together for two years and three months—went around and gave all the firemen and sailors a drink for Christmas. Then we came back to number three hatch and watched the soldiers fighting up in the hills. We had a live cargo of ammunition. I joke about it today, but if a rowboat had hit us, we would have been the first men on the moon.

• 1010

All I'm asking, gentlemen, is just give us part of what you owe us for what we did. I made the statement to the minister on the first day when he came out to speak to me on the Hill. I told him I'm here for two things, to get what we're entitled to or you gentlemen will save my family the funeral expense, because my family was told if I die on Parliament Hill not to accept my body. I have two great sons in Calgary who have been burning the e-mail in these Houses up here. They are informed of the same thing. I'm prepared to die for this cause and for the great men and women of the merchant navy.

I use the term “doing everything”. We took everything over there, sir. We took the men over there; we took the army. And Winston Churchill—I know you are all young men—in 1941-42 said the greatest battle of the war was the battle of the Atlantic, and if it was lost, the war was lost. They only had 32 days of fuel for their troops in England. Back then, in 1941-42, the German wolf pack had 20 to 40 submarines waiting in the black pit for us. They were knocking us off four ships a day, faster than Canada or the United States could build them. Not only that, but we had to fight the water in the North Atlantic. I did most of my sailing on the North Atlantic. The seamen had to get out there and chop the ice off, with the waves almost as high as these buildings.

The one thing I want to say every time I make this speech is I congratulate the navy, the sailors who were on the little corvettes who were escorting us across there, because they saw the bottom of the ocean more times than the submarines. They used to cut through the waves; we used to ride the top of them.

I had a brother who was on the front line who walked through Holland.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. McLean.

Before I go to Mrs. Wayne, I want to repeat, because I think it bears repeating from the chair, that we have had three groups request to appear before this committee since I've been in the chair—three groups of merchant mariners. The requests of all three, including yours, were duly considered and they have appeared. So it is not necessary to do anything other than to make a proper request to have it properly considered. I want to make that very clear, because we had Mr. Olmstead and we will hear Mr. Riddell at about 10.30 a.m. Thank you.

I'm going to go to Mrs. Wayne for 10 minutes.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: First, Mr. Chairman, I want to bring to the attention of all my colleagues that the coastal fishermen and their boats were put on active service. This was during the war. The fishermen were—not the merchant navy. Think about this. They were put on active service as fishermen reserve. They were in the Atlantic and the Pacific, and their job was to act as lookouts, as the eyes and the ears. These guys were on the ships. A lot of them were fishermen, but the government of the day decided to make the fishermen veterans but not the merchant navy men.

I want to correct a couple of things. It was said that no other country has done this. You just heard what Cliff said. They didn't have to even consider it, because they already made them equal in 1945. They were the ones who did it the right way. In Great Britain they made them equal. In the United States in 1986 they gave every merchant seaman a life insurance policy—you want to check it, because it's true—for $12,000 each. Also, Mr. Hackett, who's the national secretary, can tell you that there are some who get $8,300 U.S. a year. When did it start, Ryan?

• 1015

Mr. Ryan Hackett (Secretary, Canadian Merchant Navy Veterans Association): In 1988.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Since 1988, okay? So don't tell me it's never been done before. It has been done before, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Wayne.

I'd like the gentleman who replied, because this is all on the record of course, to identify himself.

Mr. Ryan Hackett: Yes, sir. My name is Ryan Hackett. I'm national secretary of the Canadian Merchant Navy Veterans Association.

The Chairman: Thank you. You're welcome here. When you made the comment, I just needed to have your name for the record of our deliberations.

Mr. Ryan Hackett: Thank you very much. We have a mutual heritage.

The Chairman: Well, we're proud of that.

Back to Mrs. Wayne.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I don't know when this was passed out, but I received it yesterday. It's a document from the Department of Veterans Affairs, saying “Merchant Navy: The Facts”. I'm going to ask Aurele and Mr. Chadderton to address this because of what it says. It rather leaves a very wrong impression, and I was totally insulted on their behalf when I read it yesterday, Mr. Chairman.

What it does is talk about disability pensions and how our merchant navy men receive these disability pensions. The way it's worded, it's as if they have received the disability pension since 1945. My understanding is that they did not receive any disability pensions until 1992. Is that correct?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: Except, Mr. Chairman, if the disability or death was incurred in direct action or counteraction with the enemy.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Okay.

The Chairman: Thank you for that.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: At that time also it stated, prisoners of war and widows. What does the proposed...? We're saying we're not supposed to talk about the omnibus bill, but it's been put out and everybody had it yesterday, the press and everybody. It says:

It will bring them under the same legislation as Armed Forces veterans and remove any doubt as to their status as veterans. It will also expand access to certain benefits for all veterans, including Merchant Navy veterans; benefits which will cost up to $8 million a year.

I believe there, Cliff, he's referring to prisoners of war and widows. Is that what he's referring to?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: I think he must be, Mr. Chairman, because the briefers told us there was no new money available to merchant seamen under the omnibus bill. So he must be referring to that part for POWs and widows who want to make a posthumous claim.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: It also states something about the Veterans' Land Act. It says, yes, they had received this post-war benefit. According to what we have, that did not happen until 1992. Is that correct?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: Well, the document I have is even more incorrect. It says that the armed forces received Veterans' Land Act benefits for our merchant navy, yes, if they were in receipt of a disability pension. Mr. Chairman, most merchant navy, if they got a disability pension, didn't get it until 1993. So what good was the Veterans' Land Act to them? It was to establish veterans after 1945 on the land.

Mr. George Proud: I'd like to make a correction, Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.

I was assuming that what you said, Mr. Chadderton, was that they didn't get a pension until 1993, but were some of them not eligible for pensions if they were in an area where they got a direct hit?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: That's quite correct.

Mr. George Proud: They then would be eligible for the Veterans' Land Act also.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: Yes.

The Chairman: Can you clarify that?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: Yes, I can clarify that.

This document is intended, as I understand it, to give us a current update. They say that the Veterans' Land Act was available to veterans and they give out a blank yes, and then they say merchant navy, yes, if in receipt of a disability pension. They're talking about a very few merchant navy who got a disability pension under the old legislation, which had a very difficult test: direct action with the enemy.

So I think Mr. Proud is correct in correcting me.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

I'll go back to Mrs. Wayne for the next five minutes.

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: I'll just make a correction here. The same thing applies when you mention prisoner of war.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes.

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: The prisoner of war issue for merchant seamen started out much earlier than it did for the armed services. They only recognized 30 months. Most of our people were four and a half and five years in prison camps. That is a correction that this fact sheet doesn't make any reference to.

• 1020

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: It also has an error when it talks about UI, Mr. Chairman. It says that the merchant navy did receive UI; they did not receive it until 1950 or so. Wasn't that it?

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: That's right.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I just want to say this, Mr. Chairman. A lot of people have been saying that a lump sum would give some merchant veterans a greater benefit than what was provided over the years to others, but this can be very easily challenged because our proposal, the proposal that's been put on the floor by these men, is based on from $5,000 to $30,000. Some would get $5,000, some would get $10,000, some would get $20,000, and I don't know how many would get $30,000.

But, Mr. Chairman, I have a motion that I'd like to put on the floor.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I would like to move that this committee recommend to the minister that they recognize these men as war veterans; that they or their spouses receive the prisoner of war benefit; and also, that they get a one-time payment, in lieu of benefits that would have been afforded to Canadian merchant navy vets had they served in the armed forces during World War II, based on Mr. Chadderton's report, of from $5,000 to $30,000.

The Chairman: Thank you.

There's a motion on the floor from Mrs. Wayne. Are there written copies available? Would that be possible, Mrs. Wayne?

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes.

The Chairman: We'll have to give members copies. While we're getting copies, Mrs. Wayne, I accept that motion. It is proper under our rules as currently constituted.

Is there discussion of that motion from the members, or would you prefer to wait until you see it in writing?

Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Is it in both official languages?

The Chairman: I don't know. I don't assume it's been translated. We can get—

Mr. Robert Bertrand: Is it not out of order?

The Chairman: No. Frankly, I was a bit surprised, but the rules of this committee allow a motion without 24-hour notice. Some committees require a 24-hour notice. I checked with our clerk, and this committee last year was on record as waiving that 24-hour notice, period. So it is in order.

Mr. Clerk, can you help me on whether or not, to be accepted, the motion has to be in both official languages?

I'm told that it does not have to be provided in both official languages. Through the interpreter, it will be read en français, of course.

Are their comments to the motion? Mr. Proud.

Mr. George Proud: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I think this is very unfair. We can vote against it, which we'll do on this side. If you want to do that for grandstanding, that's fine. I think you should have left it with the committee so that we could make our decisions as time goes on. I don't think we should be expected to make them in 15 minutes before this group of people this morning. I think it's very unfair and very childish.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Are there other comments? Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I'd like to amend the motion.

The Chairman: All right, let's entertain your amendment.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I'd like to add to the motion that we have recognition on ceremonial days.

The Chairman: Okay. Is that acceptable to you, Mrs. Wayne?

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: It's okay.

The Chairman: A friendly amendment, we call it.

I'm going to suspend the committee briefly until we have copies for the members. They have to be able to see it in writing. We'll suspend briefly, and when we have the copies we'll come back.

• 1024

• 1026

The Chairman: Ladies and gentlemen, we will reconvene the SCONDVA committee. Please ensure the doors are closed. There are times when you can't get the media to cover topics of great importance at this committee and there are other times when you can't get them to leave when there are topics of great importance being discussed. So I would like all the media to cooperate and leave the room, please.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Yes, Mrs. Wayne, on a point of order.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: In speaking with the veterans here today, I will wait to table my motion until they come before you the second time after the omnibus bill. You're going to invite them back. We will see what happens with that. So I will table my motion and we will not put it through today. Also, if you assure them they will be able to come back again before this committee, they will go off their hunger strike today. Is that correct, Ossie?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: I'd like to speak to that.

The Chairman: I'll give you a chance, Mr. Chadderton. I want to go to Mr. Wood. Procedurally, there's a motion on the floor from Mrs. Wayne. She understands that only the committee collectively can agree to table this, and I understand where she's coming from on that. I will go to Mr. Wood for a comment, I'll deal with the procedure, and then we'll go to you.

Mr. Wood.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin.

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Chairman, could Ms. Wayne read us her motion?

The Chairman: Yes.

[English]

Could we have the motion read please for the record because it's just in English, Mrs. Wayne?

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: All right. My motion is that the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs recommends that the merchant navy veterans receive prisoner of war benefits and be recognized as war vets. Also, as per the amendments by Peter, they should be recognized on ceremonial days and get a one-time extraordinary payment in lieu of benefits that would have been afforded to Canadian merchant navy veterans had they served in the armed forces during World War II.

The Chairman: So there's the motion from Mrs. Wayne. There's a little different wording, but the spirit is the same. I'm going to accept the motion. It's been properly put forward. There's a suggestion from Mrs. Wayne that if the committee were agreeable, the committee would table the motion until discussion of the omnibus bill.

Mr. Wood.

Mr. Bob Wood: Thank you, Mr. Chair. As you know, when the first hunger strike was on, through the efforts of Mrs. Wayne and with the cooperation of Mr. McLean, Mr. Hope, and Mr. Duke, we were able to—I guess obviously now—postpone the hunger strike. But part of that agreement was that the hunger strikers or the merchant navy marines, which includes Mr. Ferlatte, I might add, would have the opportunity to come back and make their pitch before the standing committee when the bill went into second reading and we were calling witnesses.

I made that commitment. These people were in the room when I made it. Mrs. Wayne was there, and I stand by that commitment that these people will be offered an opportunity to come back to appear before the committee and their expenses will be paid.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Wood.

Mr. Chadderton, and then I want to deal with the motion.

• 1030

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased—

The Chairman: Mr. Laurin, on a point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Chairman, I object. We do not even know the contents of the motion that we are discussing. I was given the English text of a motion that does not match the one that was read. Are we discussing the motion read out by Ms. Wayne or the text that I have before me? I don't know what we're talking about and, furthermore, the motion was tabled in one language only.

Mr. Chairman, we can't have an intelligent and constructive discussion without knowing what we are talking about. I am quite in favour of inviting these witnesses to come before us again, and I understand that this event may have a political payoff, but I would like the subject of our discussion to be clear. Mr. Chairman, we should terminate this discussion or adjourn the meeting until the actual written text of Ms. Wayne's motion is given to us.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Laurin. Your point is correct. What Mrs. Wayne read as the motion was not exactly what's in writing. We will amend it in writing to reflect her full words and have it translated.

My sense of the meeting is that given the comments of Mr. Wood and Mrs. Wayne, we are about to table this until a future discussion, which was committed to, as Mr. Wood said. He committed that the gentlemen would, as Mrs. Wayne is asking, be invited back at the study of the omnibus bill.

So if we could have a little forbearance and cooperation here, my sense is we're about to table this very soon for future discussion. We'll have everything at this committee properly translated in future or as chair I will simply not accept it.

With that, can I entertain a motion from Mrs. Wayne to table her motion?

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I so move.

The Chairman: You've moved that. Is there discussion on that?

Mr. Proud.

Mr. George Proud: On the original, I just wonder for Mr. Laurin's sake if Mrs. Wayne could read the motion as we have it in front of us.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: If somebody gave me a copy, I would.

Mr. George Proud: You didn't get one?

The Chairman: We're about to table it—

Mr. George Proud: That would be the simplest way, wouldn't it?

The Chairman: I think the simplest way would be this. We're about to table this. We have a motion to table for future discussion. All in favour of tabling this for the future discussion of this committee?

An hon. member: No, René doesn't have it.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Chairman, which motion is being tabled? Is it the English text in front of us, or the one that was read in English by Ms. Wayne? There are two different versions. Which one is being tabled?

[English]

The Chairman: Can I help with this? You're quite right that there is a discrepancy. I'm going to ask Mrs. Wayne to withdraw the motion, because there's some confusion. We know the spirit of what you said. I assure you, as the chair, that you'll be given the first opportunity at the proper meeting in the future to table a new motion to reflect exactly what you're requesting. I think procedurally that would help us the best today.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: So are you saying not until they come back?

The Chairman: Yes. If you would withdraw, Mrs. Wayne, at a future meeting to discuss these items, I will entertain your new motion at that time.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: All right, if that's agreeable.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. That helps very much.

We appreciate your presentation today, gentlemen. Thank you.

I'm going to welcome Mr. Riddell.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: Excuse me, sir.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: I think I have probably the most important announcement of the week.

The Chairman: Please make that.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: We have conferred among my colleagues and we want to compliment the committee. We believe the democratic process has worked very well.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: There was a meeting with the minister and there was a meeting with this committee. The representatives of the Canadian Merchant Navy Veterans Association have agreed to call off the hunger strike on the understanding that when the bill is before this committee they will be called back to give evidence.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Chadderton. We're very pleased. As we excuse the witnesses and thank you, we appreciate that announcement.

• 1035

We ask our veterans to go have a good lunch. You have my positive assurance that you will be back before this committee. Thank you.

Could we get Mr. Riddell to come forward, please? I'm going to reconvene the meeting, please, and ask the committee members to take their seats.

I have a motion from Mr. Proud that's about to be made. Mr. Stoffer and Mrs. Wayne, could we have you rejoin us? I appreciate your enthusiasm, but we're not done. We have a motion about to be made from Mr. Proud.

I'd like to recognize Mr. Proud.

Mr. George Proud: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee adopt a 24-hour notice period for motions unless otherwise ordered by this committee.

The Chairman: Okay. Mr. Proud moves that a 24-hour notice period for motions be adopted.

Are you going to speak to that, Mr. Goldring?

Mr. Peter Goldring: I thought that had been adopted.

Mr. George Proud: It wasn't. We talked about it. We discussed it, but we didn't adopt it.

The Chairman: The committee had previously operated under waiving that rule.

The motion is to institute the 24-hour rule. All in favour?

Is there a question?

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Mr. Chairman, you already stated that I could put mine forward, so do you want me to notify you again?

The Chairman: No, we have yours. This will be from now on.

All in favour?

Mr. Peter Goldring: I have a point of order.

The Chairman: There's a point of order.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I think this will be an unfair—

The Chairman: That's not a point of order; that's a point of debate.

Mr. Peter Goldring: It is? It would be unfair to put forward this motion in light of the fact that we have another witness here who wouldn't have that opportunity.

The Chairman: No, no. What other witness? The motion refers to—

Mr. George Proud: It's the main motion.

The Chairman: —a motion from members.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Yes, I realize that. But if you start that now, then the witness who is here now—

The Chairman: Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring: —wouldn't have the opportunity of somebody putting forward a motion at this time.

The Chairman: All right.

Mr. Peter Goldring: It would be unfair to do it until this witness is finished.

The Chairman: It's to take effect after this meeting. Are we clear on the motion?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Proud.

I want to welcome Mr. Riddell.

I want to indicate to members that we must finish at 11 a.m. I want to ask Mr. Riddell to be brief, if he can. Take five or ten minutes so as to allow some questions from the members.

Mr. Riddell, thank you. We're here to listen to you.

Mr. Bill Riddell (President, Merchant Navy Association): Thank you all. I've had the pleasure to meet Mrs. Wayne and

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin, whom I had already met. I'm sorry for having given only the English version of my brief to your clerk, but I don't speak French very well and I can't write in the language. I am the guilty one, so please excuse me.

[English]

I wish to also thank Mr. Goldring, who has been very, very helpful and supportive of me with what you all know is referred to as the smallest merchant navy group. Mr. Goldring has been very helpful to me. I met Mr. Morawski and yourself, Pat. We had a wonderful trip together on a remembrance. I see Mr. Proud has stepped out. I had a long relationship with him, speaking at the committee he referred to before.

I feel I don't have enough time. I could run my mouth off here for over an hour about—

The Chairman: Can you give us your best in ten minutes?

Mr. Bill Riddell: —real and imagined grievances. I didn't come here to tell you what you want to hear. The Liberal Party and the Conservative Party wouldn't be too pleased with it.

• 1040

The Chairman: Mr. Riddell, we have your brief, as you know, which was previously submitted. We've had a chance to look at it. We're here to hear whatever you want to say. I'm just indicating to you, as chairman, that I'd like to allow some time for questions.

Mr. Bill Riddell: Right.

The Chairman: If you could just focus on the most important points, that will allow some questions. That would be the most effective way.

Mr. Bill Riddell: That's what I'm going to try to do for you. I won't go through all that in the brief. You can read it later.

The Chairman: We've all read it.

Mr. Bill Riddell: As for this point of prorated benefits, I'm totally against that. Every merchant navy veteran should receive the full amount of whatever this grateful country is going to give us, if they give us anything.

I've always wanted you to include—there's been a lot of opposition to it—all our allied merchant seamen in Canada. After the war, the allied military veterans who came to Canada were all granted the same privileges and benefits that Canadian veterans were getting, but they excluded the merchant navy allied seamen veterans.

I'd like you people to correct that. They should all be included, and this retroactive stuff too, from when they first could have applied for these benefits.

You heard before from other merchant seamen and other interested parties about how our prisoners of war have been treated. Those in the merchant navy, as a group, were the longest-held prisoners of war of those in any Canadian service.

Consider the word “service”. It seems they don't want to consider the merchant navy as a service. On our memorial day, they try to refer to us as just an association. They say we can put a wreath with the gay liberation people or the Girl Guides. Each individual legion branch or any military association, at the end, goes up to put a wreath. They were granted that privilege that they give to everybody in Canada. They say we would be treated as special veterans if we were allowed to put a wreath with the vice-regal party. We're not asking for that, because in a few short years there aren't going to be any of us left. Then there would no more wreaths put.

What we would like to see is the Minister of Transport putting a wreath for us as civilian war veterans. It's not only for the merchant navy veterans, but for the air crew of the ferry command. There were a lot of civilians who served in the war right up front. There's no recognition of us there. I would like you to consider having the Minister of Transport put a wreath for all merchant seamen and civilian veterans. That's a sore point with me. Also, there's the matter of the prisoners of war and our allied veterans, who should all be included.

In Canada, who signed away our rights at the peace treaty with the Japs? Our prisoners of war, who were treated terribly by them, are unable to get any compensation. It's not only merchant seamen who have been discriminated against, it's the ones who together suffered at the hands of the Japs. Who signed away our rights in that peace treaty?

That should be rectified. The Japs are responsible for the terrible atrocities they committed since the early 1930s in China, Manchuria, and Korea. I just heard on the radio this morning that the court in Japan has turned down petitioners from Canada and the other Allies. They have lost their case to get compensation from Japan.

I would like to see the Canadian government do something about that. Maybe it wouldn't please Honda and Kawasaki dealers and everybody who's making a big buck with them, but if I were the boss, we wouldn't have any trade at all with the Japs until they paid what they owe.

There are a number of other things that I would like to get into, but I just don't have the time. To have ten minutes after over 55 years of frustration and neglect and discrimination is not enough time for me.

• 1045

The Chairman: Mr. Riddell, I just want to indicate to you that we've bent over backwards to accommodate you today.

Mr. Bill Riddell: I know you did.

The Chairman: Really, the request wasn't proper, if I can say so.

Mr. Bill Riddell: I couldn't do it properly. I live in a bus, and I don't have an office staff.

The Chairman: No, so let's go on. We've bent over backwards to accommodate you today at Mr. Goldring's request. Take a few more minutes, and then we'll have some questions.

Mr. Bill Riddell: You say you've bent over backwards, but I don't see it that way.

The Chairman: All right.

Mr. Bill Riddell: After 55 years, I think you could give me a little bit more consideration.

The Chairman: The meeting adjourns at 11 a.m., and you're using up your time with argumentation. I encourage you to highlight a few more points, and we'll allow some questions.

Mr. Bill Riddell: Let's go along with what I've told you about: compensation for our prisoners of war up to their fifty months. They accommodated the military fellows up to thirty months. The members of my association have died now. They were prisoners of war and they got nothing. The got paid up to thirty months, but they were fifty months and more in the slammer and didn't get equal compensation.

The Chairman: Are you ready for some questions?

Mr. Bill Riddell: Okay, sure.

The Chairman: I'm going to ask the committee's indulgence to allow a question per member. We'll go back and forth, and we'll get in as many questions as possible that way, given our compressed timeframe. I'm going to give the first question to Mr. Goldring, and then go to Mr. Clouthier and so on.

Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Mr. Riddell, you've long been involved with raising concerns about merchant navy issues. Your flag has been well travelled. Indeed, it has travelled the world. It was great to have you on that Battle of the Atlantic trip, so it's nice to see the support for veterans' organizations. How long have you been officially involved with veterans' organization groups?

Mr. Bill Riddell: When we first started our little group in Montreal, it was in the late fifties. The Liberal Party, with the shipowners, brought in a bunch of gangsters and racketeers from the United States. They were a so-called union, the Seafarers' International Union—and that union is still here. They replaced the Canadian war veterans in our little Canadian Seaman's Union because they said we were disrupting the Marshall Plan and that we were a bunch of Communist troublemakers. For a couple of years before that, we were the heroes of the North Atlantic, “Keep sailing, don't let your country down, you're doing a great job”. When the war was over, they threw us out on the street with nothing.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Do you not think—

The Chairman: We'll get in a brief question each, and then we'll come back to you.

Mr. Clouthier.

Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.): Mr. Riddell, thank you very much for your presentation.

I'm sure you agree with everyone on this committee that we're very pleased the hunger strike seems to have abated for the time being at least. Hopefully, it will not be necessary to do it again.

I know you speak on behalf of those men in one way, but you don't in another way. There seems to be a dichotomy of opinion between the merchant mariners, but at the end of the day, what I can say from the government side—and I know the parliamentary secretary to the minister is here—is that we will certainly take into consideration everything you've said here. We will do the same for Mr. Chadderton and the other people, such as Ossie McLean, who spoke very eloquently. We will be addressing that, and hopefully there will be some resolution brought to this difficult situation. That's more or less a statement, really. I think everything else has been asked, so basically there's no use getting into any caustic statements. Things seemed to have worked out relatively well here this morning, and hopefully they will in the future.

The Chairman: Do you have a brief comment on that, Mr. Riddell?

Mr. Bill Riddell: You're quite correct that there is more than one merchant navy group. I believe I can safely say I've been at it longer than any other merchant seaman. I've spent my own money without fear of contradiction. I've been at it full-time, I've spent more of my personal money on this, and I've given up more and have lost more than any other merchant seaman that's in it today, or even any of our supporters.

The Chairman: Thanks very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin.

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Riddell, you will pardon my ignorance, but I'm a newcomer to this committee and my colleague, Mr. Godin, was the one who usually discussed veterans' issues. We heard earlier from witnesses representing the Canadian Merchant Navy Veterans' Association.

• 1050

Mr. Riddell, you represent the Merchant Navy Association. Is this the same association? Are you appearing here as a dissident member of this association? What status should we give you in order that we can identify you correctly?

[English]

Mr. Bill Riddell: I'm the president of the Merchant Navy Association. When the other group formed in Niagara Falls, they were a branch club of the Royal Canadian Naval Association. The fellow who started that other group put an ad in Legion Magazine, looking for merchant seamen to send him a dollar. He would then send us a newsletter. I telephoned him and told him I would have some of our merchant navy members join his group, because he needed fifty members to get a charter from the Royal Canadian Naval Association. You can probably distinguish them from us. We don't wear those blue and white hats. The blue and white hat is the hat of the naval veteran.

The Merchant Navy Association amended our name after the Conservative government, under Mr. Merrithew, refused to designate us as merchant navy war veterans. I was at the hearings, and I opposed that. He said they had decided to designate us as merchant navy veterans. I said there are veteran baseball players, veteran hockey players, and everyone in the legion seems to be considered a veteran. The armed forces consider everyone who served to be veterans, whether they served in peacetime, in wartime, or in the reserves. I said merchant navy people are war veterans.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Laurin, one last question, please.

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Riddell, how many members do you represent?

Mr. Bill Riddell: Approximately 200 members.

Mr. René Laurin: You do not want a distinction to be made in terms of the number of years of service of the people you represent. You seem to be saying that the same benefits should be given to people who were in the Merchant Navy for eight months as to those who were members for 10 or 15 years. Is this really what you are advocating?

Mr. Bill Riddell: I don't really understand what you are trying to say.

Mr. René Laurin: You say that you are opposed to the recommendation made by the witnesses who preceded you, to the effect that minimum and maximum retirement pension amounts should be determined for the people who were in the Merchant Navy prior to 1992. Why are you opposed to a minimum and maximum amount? You seem to be saying that the same amount should be given to everyone, whether they work eight months or eight years. Is this really what you want?

[English]

Mr. Bill Riddell: I'm not in favour of that pro-rating. When I buy a tire at a tire company, the big corporation pro-rates it when it fails, and it gives me what it feels is fair. It's the same with a battery. They pro-rate that. I don't want to see us merchant seamen pro-rated like a battery or a tire from Goodyear or whoever we might get it from. I think we should all be treated equally, whether a fellow did one trip or ten trips. Sometimes those trips were cut short and they lost their life on one trip or on half a trip, on the way there. Others were prisoners of war.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. I know there are some more questions.

Mr. Bertrand.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Bertrand: I would like to ask Mr. Riddell a fairly short question. In the excellent brief that you have submitted to us, you indicate that Mr. Chadderton and yourself apparently do not share the same opinion as to the definition of veteran status. Could you explain to me very briefly what the differences of opinion are between you and Mr. Chadderton in this regard?

• 1055

[English]

Mr. Bill Riddell: From what I recently heard from Mr. Chadderton, he seems to feel the merchant navy veterans should be considered full veterans. That's my position, but the government seems to have a problem over this word “retroactive”.

Years ago, there was the Veterans' Land Act and education. I got none of that. That's why I'm sitting here. I can't talk French. I couldn't put a submission in. I live in a bus. I didn't make it in the after-the-war life. I'm sure most of you have a nice home, a nice car. You have a bank account. People did generally better than a lot of the merchant seamen. I left school in the eighth grade and went to war. I was 16. When I got out I was 20. I couldn't go back to school. As a result, I've lived a life of hardship and poverty.

Right now, I'm getting the old age pension and the supplement, which is somewhere around $850 perhaps. The Department of Veterans Affairs, for a grateful government, for a grateful nation, for my service during the war, gives me an extra $51 a month and calls it a civilian war allowance, as opposed to a war veteran's allowance. The money is exactly the same, except that the bottom line is that I get $51 a month more than a draft dodger.

The Chairman: We'll have a quick question from Mr. Stoffer. We're almost out of time, unfortunately.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you for your presentation. In your opinion, why have the previous and present governments been so stubborn in not addressing your concerns?

Mr. Bill Riddell: Really, I don't know. As Mr. Proud could tell you, this is after more than 25 years. We have gotten something. They put a beautiful book of remembrance in the Peace Tower for the merchant navy veterans of the two world wars. That didn't put a nickel in any of our pockets. It didn't help my standard of living one little bit. They granted us veterans' status in civilian legislation. That would allow us, if necessary, to go into a veterans' hospital and be treated with other veterans.

My brother was a merchant seaman. I started at 16 and he was 15. He had lung cancer, so I went out to Calgary in 1996 to try to get him into the Colonel Belcher Hospital with other war veterans, only to find out that Canada has washed its hands of all veterans. The federal government has turned over the hospitals to the provinces. The Province of Alberta, in Calgary, has x number of beds reserved for the war veterans, and they always have 12 to 16 veterans waiting to get in. Canada has abandoned those 12 to 16. My brother was unable to get in. He died in a Salvation Army hospice with lung cancer.

The Chairman: Mr. Riddell, I want to get a last quick question in, and I need a very quick answer. Another committee has arrived and we're about to adjourn.

Mr. Bill Riddell: Okay, I understand.

The Chairman: I'm going to give the last quick question to Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Mr. Riddell, would you summarize by saying that the entire focus of this should be this amount that the veterans are looking for? The difficulty we seem to be having in addressing it is the word “retroactive”—maybe it should be ex gratia—in terms of the payment, the recompense due. Would you agree it was post-war discrimination that imposed poverty on the merchant navy?

Mr. Bill Riddell: Yes, 100%.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Riddell. We appreciate you coming here today.

The meeting is adjourned.