OTTAWA, ON, September 29, 1998 - The National Council of Veteran Associations, comprising 35 groups representing veterans and former members of the Canadian military, released a statement today supporting, in principle, the request of three Merchant Navy members who today commenced a hunger strike on Parliament Hill.

"We submitted a proposal to the Senate Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs on January 20, 1997, stating that the Merchant Navy had received no immediate post discharge benefits such as out of work allowances, land grants, business loans and education assistance, " Cliff Chadderton, NCVA Chairman, stated.

"The only way the government could make it up to this group now would be in the form of a cash grant for the survivors," Chadderton said.

Chadderton stated that the National Council had been pursuing a proposal for the past 15 years that the Government pay a lump sum to make up for the benefits received by veterans, but denied Merchant Navy on their de-mobilization.

In the January 1997 brief, the NCVA made the following proposals:

1. That the Merchant Navy Veteran and Civilian War-Related Benefits Act be amended in respect of civilian personnel to ensure that the provisions of the Pension Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act (and the Veterans Health Care Regulations as impacted by such legislation) be amended to provide the same benefits as exist for former members of the Armed Forces.
2. That the Government pay a lump sum to Merchant Navy veterans and to civilian personnel covered under the Merchant Navy Veteran and Civilian War-Related Benefits Act in compensation for the benefits under the Veterans Charter which were not made available to such persons in the same manner as were available to veterans of the Armed Forces; and that in no case should the amount be less than five thousand dollars if the person served a period of at least six months. And further that the lump sum take into account the time served.

Essential Facts:

• The Canadian Government did not recognize the tremendous contribution of the Canadian Merchant Seamen immediately following World War II. The government of the day (and presumably the public servants whose task it was to advise the governments) failed to recognize the tremendous dangers and hardships involved in Merchant Navy service during World War II.
• There was also considerable misinformation as to the terms of service and the remuneration. Considering the former, the Merchant Seamen were certainly required to place their lives on the line, under a contract with the Canadian government. While it may have been true in some cases that the remuneration was in small measure greater than that of, for example, the private soldier, the difference was certainly not sufficient to warrant exclusion of the Merchant Navy veteran from full veteran status and full veteran benefits.
• It is true amendments to the Merchant Navy and Civilian War Related Benefits Act of July 1, 1992, made some improvement. The major discrepancy, however, is very easily understood. The legislation made no provision for the fact that compensation was not on a par with that for veterans of the regular military forces. This is particularly true in regard to post-discharge benefits.
• The only practical method of fulfilling what should amount to an obligation on the part of the government would be payment of a lump sum as set out in our recommendations.