STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA DÉFENSE NATIONALE ET DES ANCIENS COMBATTANTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 18, 1999

• 0900

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.)): I'd like to call to order the meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.

As colleagues will remember, we are now moving to a very important topic, to the issue of possible compensation to merchant mariners. We had a motion earlier on from Mrs. Wayne, which was tabled for this discussion. We have a number of witnesses who wish to come and appear before this committee over the next, I would think, several weeks to give everyone a full opportunity.

The committee's objective, and certainly mine as chair, is to give a fair and full hearing to everyone who has relevant testimony to give to this standing committee, SCONDVA, on this important issue, and when we have had that full and fair hearing from all parties, then the committee will be finally seized with the issue and with at least one motion that's on the table at this point.

As I say, there are several groups who wish to come. We do have other work as well that could possibly briefly interrupt these hearings, such as the committee estimates. There's a very narrow window to do the estimates, so it's possible every single meeting over the next little while may not totally deal with this issue, but this is the issue we're really seized with, and except for any necessary other issues that have to be dealt with because of the timeframe, we will be exclusively dealing with this issue to its conclusion.

I'd like to welcome the witnesses here today. We have two groups who are going to speak to us today, the first being the Royal Canadian Legion.

Did you have a point of order, Mr. Goldring?

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Yes, I do have a point of order. I'd like to raise the observation and ask the question if anything has changed from the understanding of the motion that was put before the committee that these affairs be conducted and a report be issued before the summer break.

There have been some reports in the newspaper recently that if certain things aren't done within a month and a half, there will be a continuation of a hunger strike, and I'd like to have it clarified if our timetable is changed from the summer recess break, which I thought everybody was in agreement on. If that's not changed, then what is this hunger strike referring to? What report will be issued within a month and a half?

The Chairman: First of all, the hunger strike is not something this committee has any control over. We regret that. We don't see it, quite frankly, as a necessary tactic. Any group that wants to appear before this committee, I can assure you as chair, will have the right to appear before this committee. Hunger strike or no hunger strike, they have a right to appear.

Let me answer your question. The hunger strike is not a topic of discussion for this committee.

As far as our deadline, there's been no change whatsoever or I would have addressed that. Our objective is to hear all people who wish to give testimony to this committee and to present our report before the House rises for the summer. So that's the clarification.

Let's go now to the first...

On a point of order, Mrs. Wayne.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): I had asked the minister if he could fast-track it before we recess, and I asked in the House of Commons. He said they follow a procedure, and I think everyone understands now that we are asking them, before we recess in June, if it's at all possible, to get our report done and a recommendation or whatever coming back.

The Chairman: I see.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: That's what we asked.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Wayne.

I was unaware of the background to that, but I appreciate that clarification.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Okay.

The Chairman: Our timeline is to hear everyone, give them a full and fair hearing. I would hope that would wrap up sometime in May, possibly at the end of April, May. It's hard to predict in this place how time unfolds and issues come up, but certainly it is very clear that our objective is to finalize the hearings and, as Mrs. Wayne just indicated, to have completed our report before we rise for the summer, as I've already said.

• 0905

So with that introduction, refreshing our minds about what we are here for, I would like to go to the witnesses.

Gentlemen, Mr. Allan Parks and Mr. Jim Rycroft from the Royal Canadian Legion, who's going to start, please?

Mr. Allan Parks (Chairman, Veterans' Service and Seniors Committee, Royal Canadian Legion): I'll start.

The Chairman: Oui, monsieur Laurin, do you have a point of order?

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I have been told that only one committee member received a copy of the document that our witnesses will present to us this morning. I would like to know whether it is true that a single copy was given to a member of the Reform Party, in English, because the document had not been translated, contrary to our committee's rules.

I do not want to delay our deliberations for this reason, but I would appreciate if the member who received the English copy, if it is truly the only one distributed, return it to the Clerk. He will receive a copy at the same time as everyone else, once the translation has been completed.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Laurin. Maybe I can explain. This committee, as do most committees of the House, operates in both official languages and we require of our witnesses to submit any written submission they wish to distribute to the committee clerk—in this case, Mr. Morawski—with enough time for him or her to have that material translated so it's available to all the members in both official languages, as per the rules of the committee and the House.

I'm informed by the clerk that the witnesses here today did in fact submit their brief but that there was a problem in the clerk's office. So the witnesses did comply with our request and our requirement, and unfortunately there was some glitch and it was not translated. Mr. Goldring has a copy properly in English and other members will receive one in English momentarily, and we have to extend apologies to those on both sides of the table, frankly, not just Monsieur Laurin, but we have members on both sides of the table whose first language is French and who are more comfortable in French.

But I understand, Mr. Clerk, there was a problem in the clerk's department and it was not the witnesses' fault.

The Clerk of the Committee: We misplaced it.

The Chairman: So, Monsieur Laurin, on the basis that the witnesses met the request, we're going to have to allow the document to be distributed, and, as you say, we'll get you a copy and we'll ask the translators to be of as much assistance to you as they can be.

Monsieur Bertrand.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I have a copy of the translation. Was Mr. Parks's brief not translated? I have a copy of Mr. Ferlatte's brief; it is translated.

[English]

The Chairman: We're talking about the Legion brief.

I don't want to take up all these witnesses' time and our question time with procedural matters. I've explained the problem. The problem was in-house; it was not with the witnesses. English copies are going to be distributed. A copy will be given to the translator to try to assist those who would be better off or more comfortable in French, and we will provide at least an English copy to all members.

• 0910

I'd like to proceed. Can we do that without a lot more procedural discussion?

Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I'd like to know if we could get a copy a little earlier. Is this the earliest that we can get a copy of the brief, or is it possible to have the copies delivered to our office earlier for study?

The Chairman: Having been here for almost six years, I can tell you that witnesses quite often will come in with quite a bit of documentation that they often just bring with them. I guess it's hard for them to get that work done and get it to us earlier at times, but I've assured witnesses in the past that, to my knowledge, all MPs can read. Not facetiously, it's to their advantage to get that information to us as soon as possible.

This information was in about ten days ago. We will make sure it's distributed as expeditiously as we can once it's in the hands of the clerk. So there we are. I'm sorry that it isn't available. Mr. Morawski has indicated the problem was in his office.

I'd like to begin now. Mr. Rycroft, are you going to begin?

Mr. Allan Parks: No, I will.

The Chairman: Welcome. Please go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Chairman, excuse me, but if some committee members already have a copy of the brief. I believe this puts me at a disadvantage for questioning witnesses. If the member has a copy in hand, and does not agree, as a matter of courtesy, to return it to the Clerk, so that we can all work on an equal footing, I shall leave the committee.

[English]

The Chairman: I indicated this, but maybe you didn't hear me. All members are going to get a brief in the next minute or two, because the clerk is having copies made for all members. We will all have a copy of the brief, but unfortunately only in English. We don't have it in French. I can't tell these witnesses that having met the requirements, we can't hear them. I understand your frustration, Monsieur Laurin, but I think you'd have to take it up with the clerk, because he said the problem is in his office.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Chairman, I am not asking that we not hear the witnesses. These people deserve our respect. I am merely asking the committee members who have a copy of the brief, to return it to the Clerk so that we can all work on an equal footing. This is what I am asking. If the committee members are not willing to do that, I consider that I am not an equal member, and I shall have to withdraw while these witnesses are heard.

[English]

The Chairman: Yes, I understand now. The interpreters have a copy in English that they can help us with. There are copies being made now. Can I ask why the English copies weren't distributed to the members earlier?

The Clerk: We only distribute them when we have them in both languages.

The Chairman: All right, then, I can see the problem. The documents are only distributed when we have them available in both official languages. The Legion provided a copy with enough time for that to take place, but there was a problem in the clerk's office. It therefore did not take place. It has not been translated into French. The clerk is having copies made as I speak. As soon as they're available, we'll give them to the members.

We'll begin with the witnesses, and all members will have a copy of the brief momentarily. I'm ruling that the witnesses have fully complied. I apologize to the members for the glitch on behalf of the clerk's office, and I'm now going to proceed with this meeting, beginning with the Legion and Mr. Parks.

Mr. Allan Parks: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members. The Royal Canadian Legion welcomes this opportunity to follow up on comments made—

Mr. Robert Bertrand: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. Bertrand.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: In this case, I think Mr. Laurin is right. I don't think it's acceptable that one member of the committee has the document while, I gather, all the rest of us do not. What I would suggest is maybe a two- or three-minute recess until everyone gets a copy of it.

The Chairman: I'm fine with that. Is that agreeable to the members? All right, we will stand recessed for a few minutes.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: I don't know which member has it, but if that member gives his or her copy to the clerk, then we can start.

• 0915

The Chairman: If I might, I don't think there's any requirement for Mr. Goldring to give up a document that he's been... I see you, Mr. Earle, but I'm going to finish this comment. I'm reminded of students, you know. The members are anxious today. I'm like a classroom teacher who's trying to make a point and has five kids he definitely wants to get to. He's going to get to them eventually, but he has to make his point as well.

I think your point was well taken. I was not trying to slight Mr. Laurin, but in fairness to these witnesses who complied, they're not responsible for the clerk's office, quite frankly. There was an error made. Here come the copies now, and while they're being distributed, I'll go to my colleague and friend, Mr. Earle.

Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): If I understand the problem correctly, it's not so much about everybody having a copy in English. I believe Mr. Laurin is making a point that he should have a copy en français.

The Chairman: Yes, that's understood.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Rather than having a problem in that regard, my suggestion would be that none of us has a copy and that we let the witnesses proceed. That way we would all be on the same footing. We would hear the information, and then we could respond accordingly. Once the document is translated, everybody could then have a copy in either language.

The Chairman: Well, I'm open to your suggestions. As chair, my feeling is that Mr. Goldring properly has a copy. There's no problem with him having his copy, so let's be clear on that. The rest of us are going to get at least a copy in English right now. There was a mistake made, and it's not just affecting Monsieur Laurin. I have colleagues on this side whose first language is also French, and I'm sure they would prefer to have it en français, but because of a mistake made in the department, that's not possible. I would therefore submit to you that if we all have the English copy with the assistance of the translator, we're better off and are going to give a fairer hearing to the committee than what you proposed, Mr. Earle. But if it bothers the members that much, I'll take a motion in a minute.

Mr. Goldring has another point of order. I didn't foresee this, but I'm sorry.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I hope this won't be interpreted by the witnesses as any reluctance on their part to give us copies. We arrived here early and we asked them for a copy, and we much appreciated getting a copy of it. We had no idea that it would create this kind of a snafu. So I certainly want to be sure that the witnesses understand that, by all means, this is no reflection on them having a copy in order to give it to us. We were just here a little earlier than everybody else. I just want to make that point very clear.

Thank you.

The Chairman: All right.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Chairman, by allowing the Clerk to distribute an English-only copy to all members, you are not solving the problem. On the contrary, it will be worse, because I shall be the only member without a copy in my own language. It would be fairer if the member who has a copy would agree, out of courtesy to the other members, to return his copy to the Clerk. I know that he is not obliged to do so. He has received the document and he can certainly keep it. However, so that we can all work on equal footing, I would appreciate such a gesture of courtesy.

Furthermore, if you distribute copies to all the other members in their language, while I do not have one in my language, you are making matters worse, not better.

[English]

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: May I raise a point of order on this?

The Chairman: Okay, Mrs. Wayne.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: With respect to my colleague from the Bloc, the presentation that will be made this morning will be translated for all of us. I assume you're not reading what you passed out. You're going to make a presentation to us, you're going to take things out, you're going to shorten things, and you're going to just address certain issues. Are you going to read it?

Mr. Allan Parks: I'm reading a report that's five pages long.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: It's five pages, and it will be translated for all of us. In the meantime, I think we can get the written translation for you as well.

The Chairman: If I might, I have great sympathy for Mr. Laurin's point, but I would correct him to this extent. If I'm not mistaken, at least our colleague Monsieur Bertrand's first language is French. I don't know about Mr. Clouthier. He certainly speaks both, but I don't know what his first language is. So it's not just Mr. Laurin whose first language and preferred language is French. Let's first make that point clear.

I repeat that the Legion did meet our requirements on documentation. I say for about the tenth time that there was a problem in the clerk's office, and it will not be repeated. Either that, or we will find out who's at fault and take corrective action. I apologize to the witnesses that this is taking place.

• 0920

I will tell you that Mr. Goldring has just expedited matters by returning his copy to the clerk. Although there was no necessity for him to do so, we appreciate that.

Thank you, Mr. Laurin. I have full sympathy for your point. I regret the procedural conundrum that we started this meeting with. We can now proceed to the point at hand, which is Mr. Parks and the Legion.

Mr. Allan Parks: Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.

The Royal Canadian Legion welcomes this opportunity to follow up on comments made at the meeting of this committee held on December 1, 1998. I am Allan Parks, chairman of the Veterans' Service and Seniors Committee. With me are Senator Jack Marshall, grand president of the Royal Canadian Legion, and Jim Rycroft, director of the service bureau for Dominion Command.

On the merchant navy compensation issues, the Dominion Executive Council of the Royal Canadian Legion has endorsed the concept of compensation for merchant navy veterans at its meeting held in Ottawa on February 27 and 28, 1999.

Dominion Executive Council is the governing body of the Legion. When its dominion convention, held every two years, is not in session, it meets twice a year to consider the business of the Legion and issues that arise between conventions.

The Royal Canadian Legion represents the interests of all veterans in Canada. It wants to ensure that the process used by this committee involves a fair formula to compensate individual merchant navy veterans for past injustices. Whatever process is invoked by this committee for compensation of merchant navy veterans, it is the sincere wish of the Royal Canadian Legion that the same process meets the needs of the other remaining groups of veterans who have been disadvantaged—for example, those who served in Ferry Command—to ensure that no veteran is left unrecognized for his or her service.

The Legion asks all of Canada's veterans organizations to work together to ensure application of a fair process so that a proper result can be obtained for merchant navy veterans. We are confident that this same approach will ensure that other groups that have suffered inequities in the application of compensation legislation in the past will be treated fairly.

Mr. Jim Rycroft (Director, Service Bureau, Royal Canadian Legion): The task of finding a process that can achieve fairness some 55 years after the fact is a difficult one. From the perspective of the Royal Canadian Legion, there are two main areas that need to be considered. The first is the issue of compensation for missed opportunities. The Veterans' Land Act and financial assistance for education were two benefits that were denied some merchant navy veterans.

It is our understanding that merchant navy veterans became eligible for some financial assistance in 1949 and were eligible for Veterans' Land Act benefits if they were in receipt of a disability pension. Veterans Affairs Canada has indicated that only some 13% of army, navy, and air force veterans took advantage of either of these benefits for which they were eligible. In fact, more recently, Veterans Affairs has advised that only some 5% of eligible veterans went for Veterans' Land Act benefits between 1945 and the beginning of the Korean War. After the Korean War, the numbers are mixed, but perhaps this would be a question to be addressed to the department for clarification.

On other issues, such as priority in the public service for employment, can it not be argued that this was offset by the merchant navy's eligibility for unemployment insurance, including out-of-work allowances?

Given the complexities, revisiting just who was eligible for what and trying to determine what someone would have done over half a century ago is virtually impossible. The Legion suggests that some compensation is warranted to right the inequity created by lost opportunities, but it must be tempered by consideration of the fact that not all would have applied or benefited, and that some merchant navy veterans may have benefited to a certain extent under the limited circumstances under which benefits were available. We are very interested in hearing from other groups on how they perceive this issue.

The next issue that should be addressed is the inequity created by the criteria applied to a merchant navy veteran before he would be eligible for a disability pension prior to 1992, in contrast to the insurance principle applied to army, navy, and air force veterans. This meant that pension benefits would flow from a situation for a merchant navy veteran that occurred in the course of action against the enemy. This would have excluded, for example, compensation under pension legislation for injuries sustained as a result of falling and being injured due to rough seas, while the Royal Canadian Navy counterpart would have been pensionable.

• 0925

While all this changed in 1992, there has been no consideration for situations that were not covered by the insurance principle prior to 1992. If, as Veterans Affairs Canada suggests, more than 75% of all merchant navy veterans receive benefits currently, it would not seem to be an inordinate task to determine which remaining merchant navy veterans were denied pension benefits in their applications prior to 1992, because the insurance principle did not apply.

The concern of the government in giving retroactive effect to the legislation is appreciated. Therefore, the Royal Canadian Legion recommends an ex gratia payment—that is, one based on a moral obligation—to be made in the equivalent amount of the pension benefit that would have been received by the merchant navy veteran or his survivor if the insurance principle had applied to cases before 1992.

Mr. Allan Parks: The Royal Canadian Legion has long stood behind the recognition of merchant seamen as veterans. Merchant navy veterans have been eligible for membership in the Royal Canadian Legion as regular members since the beginning days of the Legion in 1926. The Legion was a strong advocate of the concept that ultimately resulted in the 1992 legislation in the form of the Merchant Navy Veteran and Civilian War-related Benefits Act. Resolution No. 11, passed at the 1990 convention, called for this full recognition and further resolved that the merchant navy veterans be eligible for the veterans independence program.

The challenge for this committee will be to find a process that will fairly compensate for past injustices. This will be a difficult task. It must be done in the context of the unique circumstances that applied to Hong Kong prisoners of war and Buchenwald prisoners of war who were recently awarded a lump sum. In the extraordinary circumstances of war, these two groups found themselves in circumstances of extreme hardship. This situation was unique.

The issue of merchant navy veterans, as indicated at the beginning of our presentation, is how to achieve a degree of parity as a result of inequities that existed between merchant navy veterans and army, navy, and air force veterans prior to 1992. This must be done in recognition that different factors apply to their respective service to their country. Nevertheless, as veterans reach a stage in their lives when their needs are becoming indistinguishable, it is time to compensate fairly for past inequities. We hope the Royal Canadian Legion's input has helped this committee to achieve this goal.

The Chairman: Is that the end of your remarks? All right, thank you very much. They were succinct.

We'll start with a ten-minute round, beginning with the Reform Party's Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you for your presentation, gentlemen.

I have a couple of questions. You made mention of the global ex gratia payment. Was this global ex gratia payment meant to be all-encompassing, or was this to be separate to this insurance principle calculation? Perhaps you could explain how this insurance principle calculation would be done. Would it be done on a per person basis based on their record of service? Is there any allowance given that there might be varying lengths of service by the veterans too? In other words, is the ex gratia to replace entirely the insurance principle, or is it in addition to it?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: Thank you, Mr. Goldring.

There are two aspects to the proposal we are making. One is a global ex gratia payment to take care of the intangibles, the ones that simply can't be sorted out 55 years after the fact. The other aspect is more precisely calculable. It would consist of what a disability pension payment would have been if the insurance principle had applied to the merchant navy veteran as equally as it did to his uniformed counterpart. This would be an individual calculation for people who did suffer a disability as a result of their service.

Mr. Peter Goldring: So this would be calculated from the war until this date?

• 0930

Mr. Jim Rycroft: In our reading, it would be, provided the individual had made application. For the uniformed member, the time when the clock starts running for the payment is from the time of application. We see this applying to the merchant navy veteran in the same way. Now, the merchant navy veteran would have been turned down at time one, because the insurance principle would not apply. Nevertheless, there were some who did in fact apply and were turned down, and those records could be tracked back relatively easily.

Mr. Peter Goldring: So you'd be looking for confirmation that the application had been made at an early date. Is that how you would start it?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: Some evidence of it, yes. That evidence may not be a formal application; it may be letters, it may be letters to ministers, or it may be ministerial inquiries. But there must be some evidence to show that there was a representation made on the disability pension situation. That's to avoid throwing it wide open, because that would then damage all the uniformed members, who could then argue that they too should go back to 1945 instead of, say, 1950 or 1955, or whenever they actually did get around to putting in their applications.

Mr. Peter Goldring: But was it not common knowledge within the service itself that those applications would not be received and reviewed anyway? There may be a number of veterans who just simply didn't apply for this because they understood there was no point in applying since it wouldn't be approved. Would there be situations like that?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: There may well be, and you may want to have a wider standard of what you would accept as proof, even including something such as a complaint, a letter to the editor from a veteran saying he would be applying for benefits but cannot. It would be evidence to show that a particular individual wanted to advance those rights.

Mr. Peter Goldring: So you're looking more for people who could substantiate a war-related injury that would be pensionable. Whether they actually made the formal application or not, they might still have some consideration if they can substantiate that it was a pensionable item.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: In our view, yes, but we would not want to disadvantage those uniformed members who may not have put in an application for 10 years or 15 years after the war. Nor would we want to put the committee or Parliament in the situation of having to revisit all disability pensioners if the formula isn't arrived at correctly here.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Okay, bottom line, how do you calculate this? You say it's an insurance principle. How do you calculate it and round it off in today's dollars, taking into account cost-of-living increases and 40 or 50 years' worth of pensionable living? It must be a nightmare to come up with a calculation on this. Do you have in mind something that would be used?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: Firstly, Mr. Goldring, we don't think the numbers of those who actually did raise their hand at time one and said they thought they had been shortchanged are going to be excessive. There may be 500; there may be 1,000. Those individual file cases can then be reviewed. It's going to be a burden on Veterans Affairs Canada—which we see as the agency responsible for it—but it's not an impossible one. Veterans Affairs Canada now has to deal with periods of retroactivity, so certainly they have the mechanisms and the formulas for figuring out what a missed pension would be, albeit they have capped that at three years presently.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Do you have any idea what a missed full pension would be in today's dollars and cents, as a catch-up?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: No, I would only be guessing. For somebody who was 100% disabled in 1945, from 1945 to 1992 you would clearly be talking about something in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. But I also suggest that those kinds of situations would be extraordinarily rare. Also, there were some compensation schemes for the merchant navy, albeit not under the same basis as uniformed services, but somebody who was 100% disabled already would have achieved some support from society. So the hundreds of thousands of dollars would be a theoretical value for someone who would get that, but I would be very much surprised if somebody actually fit into that category.

Mr. Peter Goldring: So by extension, a ten-percenter would be in the tens of thousands of dollars.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: That's correct, but we want to make something clear, though. Rather than simply saying that it's too difficult, that we should just give a lump sum to everybody and put in an amount that would also compensate for disability situations, we're suggesting that you treat the disability situation separately. That's the key issue we're trying to maintain here: the separation into a disability component and a lost opportunities component. We suggest that the actual formula is probably best left in the hands of bureaucrats of Veterans Affairs, but we'd like to work with them as they try to achieve perfection.

• 0935

Mr. Peter Goldring: Bottom-lining the number one, the global ex gratia payment, do you have a number in mind?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: All we can say to this—and it's before hearing any of the other presentations—is that it would be a relatively nominal amount in the order of $5,000 or so. We don't want to be taken as being locked into $5,000, but when you compare it to the $20,000-plus given to Hong Kong prisoners of war or Buchenwald prisoners of war, we want to make sure we don't create any inequities with our position there either.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Understandably, Hong Kong is an entirely different matter. That's a matter of a foreign country that didn't live up to its obligations and, quite frankly, didn't step forward itself to make this type of payment for slave labour. There have been some comparisons to it, but I don't think the two really are comparable, other than the simple words “ex gratia”.

So I guess what we're looking for here, in your mind, would be in the $5,000 range, approximately.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: Simply put, if you consider that only 13% of uniformed members took advantage of certain benefits, then some discounting is ordered. While we don't want to be nailed down to what that is—you'd actually have to go back to see what it is—we think it would be less than one would get for saying what the value of the Veterans' Land Act and education benefits were, extrapolated over 55 years.

Mr. Peter Goldring: So from your presentation, it sounds like your organization is firmly committed to seeing this taken through to a resolve, and that your organization is fully supportive of compensation. Is this true? Are you fully supportive of compensation, and do you fully recognize that there are good and solid reasons to compensate for the inequities from the war to this date?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: Yes, Mr. Goldring, there's no question about that. We simply wanted to put on the table the two aspects of that compensation, so that they would be considered by this committee.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Now, just to comment, we have the other bill that addresses the other concerns that the merchant navy has through the House. I'd like your comment as to whether or not this fits in at this time, and whether or not you felt compensation could have been handled in the bill itself. Or, in your mind, are these guesstimations that you have here on the compensation an equitable approach to it?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: In our view, this was a proper way to proceed. The provisions of Bill C-61 are very important. In some cases, widows and survivors of veterans will not be able to receive payment until that's passed into law, so we didn't want to see that held up while we considered these issues. As long as this committee fairly considers the issues now, then justice will have been achieved.

Mr. Peter Goldring: All right, thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Goldring. You went exactly ten minutes.

As I said at the start, sir, I can assure you that we're going to give a full and fair hearing to every witness who wants to come before this committee.

With that, I want to go to our colleague from the Bloc.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin, ten minutes, please.

Mr. René Laurin: I don't know if my question is for Mr. Parks or Mr. Rycroft, but you will see.

With respect to determining entitlement for compensation, you refer to requests that could have been made in the past. This must be very difficult to apply, and it might also be unfair to some veterans. For example, how would you handle an application that could have been made at the time by a merchant seaman who is now deceased. Obviously, he would not have received a positive response, because there was no program. Would his widow be entitled to compensation? How would we determine the amount of a disability pension, since the person is no longer with us? We would probably have to find old medical files to see how much he should receive. How would you suggest solving these problems?

• 0940

Mr. Jim Rycroft: First, Mr. Laurin, the compensation will certainly be given to merchant seamen or their survivors. This must be a criteria. It is never easy to determine the amount. Even at the present time, it is difficult to calculate the degree of disability. For someone who has been dead for years, we would have to try to describe his condition just before his death. This could be done by the family doctor or by consulting civilian records. In other cases, we would have to rely exclusively on survivors' testimony to describe the condition of the person before his death. It is never easy, but the Department has experience in such calculations.

Mr. René Laurin: In your opinion, would the entitlement stop with the widow; if the widow was also deceased, would other claimants be considered in the application?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: No. The situation would be the same as for present members. The entitlement dies with the widow, unless there is a dependent, but this is unusual 55 years after the end of the war.

Mr. René Laurin: You are no doubt aware of the demands of the merchant seamen. Do you fully agree with all of these demands? Do you have any differences of opinion?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: There are always small differences of opinion, but the Royal Canadian Legion supports the merchant seamen in their attempt to achieve justice. We do not agree on all the details, or even on the amount, which has not yet been set. We now wish to hear from the other groups and give the committee all the facts, so that justice shall be done.

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Ferlatte presented his brief to us a little while ago. Are you aware of his demands?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: I have not seen Mr. Ferlatte's brief.

Mr. René Laurin: They have set amounts that might be claimed. You have never discussed this together. You are not aware of this, and so you can tell me whether or not you agree.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: No, because I have not seen them yet.

Mr. René Laurin: You have not seen them. In your opinion, what is the best way to solve the problem? Would it be easier to simply give a lump sum to all those who can prove that they were members of the merchant navy? Would this be simpler than spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to document the specific situation of each person? All of the money spent on paperwork and enquiries is money that the veterans and the merchant seamen would never see. Would it not be simpler to calculate a lump sum for all of those who can prove that they served during the stated period?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: Mr. Laurin, it might be simpler, but not necessarily fair. The problem is that other groups received benefits for many years. Granting a lump sum without examining the individual situation of each merchant seaman would be unfair to the other groups. We want to avoid this situation.

Mr. René Laurin: Can you give us an example of what might happen to the other groups? I presume that you are thinking of the air force or the army. Can you give me an example of an unfair situation that could be created and of claims that might be submitted by other groups in order to have their situation re- adjusted? I can't see how this could lead to demands from other groups. Can you give me an example?

• 0945

Mr. Jim Rycroft: Let's take the example of someone who did not apply for education assistance or benefits under the Veterans Land Act after the war.

Mr. René Laurin: You are speaking about the army.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: That person today is saying that had he known he was entitled to those things, he would have been compensated a long time ago. There are thousands of veterans in this situation. It is not fair for all members of the merchant navy to receive an amount, but not members of the air force or the navy. This is our problem.

Mr. René Laurin: We know that vocational training was provided to servicemen at the end of the war, but not to merchant seamen, because it was thought that they would be able to continue to work in the merchant navy. Unfortunately, this was not the case. If we try to decide who could have received vocational training, who did not receive it and who was entitled to receive it but turned it down, there would be no end to it.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: Yes, that is why we are suggesting an overall amount for all members of the merchant navy and their survivors for lost benefits. As for pensions, the files will have to be reviewed and so on.

Mr. René Laurin: Would your association agree to making no further demands regardless of the settlement made to merchant navy veterans?

[English]

Mr. Allan Parks: To try to answer the question, getting back to the compensation and so on, our main concern as the Legion is to see that everyone out there gets a fair shake.

When you're asking if we would drop it there and not go any further, I would just have to say on behalf of the Legion and the merchant navy that if we felt they did not get a fair shake, then I would think we should be back fighting for them.

That's about the best way I can answer that at this point.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Yes, but that does not quite answer the question I asked, Mr. Parks. I think that the committee will certainly make recommendations to the department after hearing witnesses, and the Minister will make a decision concerning the merchant seamen.

Here is my question: Whatever is decided for the merchant seamen, are you willing to say that today you are not trying to keep your options open in case those people receive more than you think they might be entitled to? Or are you simply supporting them so that their situation can be settled and they can get a little more justice?

If after that your group wants to reopen the issue, we would get caught in a vicious circle that would never end. Is your association, the Canadian Legion, willing to agree to make no further claims, regardless of the decision taken concerning the merchant seamen?

[English]

Mr. Allan Parks: I would think, yes, that the Legion would be prepared to take that stand.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Laurin.

[English]

Now from the government side, or the majority side, the parliamentary secretary is going to start. Mr. Wood.

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rycroft, back in early December, under questioning from Mr. Proud, you were asked whether you agreed with the merchant navy demand for retroactive compensation, and you replied, sir, no, not the one they're looking for because we haven't seen the justification for that.

What I would like to know is how your position has changed so drastically that you now would support such a claim.

• 0950

Mr. Jim Rycroft: It actually hasn't changed that drastically. The difficulty was that we had heard it was to be global amounts to everyone without any discounting or consideration of the fact that not everyone would have been eligible, and so forth. That's why in our paper today you'll see we're carefully trying to break down the two principles of disability pension and equities, and lost opportunities.

The fundamental position of the Legion hasn't changed. In 1992 with the legislation, you'll find the Legion was there making sure that merchant navy veterans got equal treatment for disability pensions. What this is perhaps is once you've achieved that step, let's look at what the remaining inequities are. It may very well be that in the course of these hearings there's justification for amounts far in excess of the modest figure we've suggested. We simply have to see what it is, to make sure that whatever formula is adopted by this committee doesn't then make inequities for all the other groups who have been dealt with over the past 55 years plus.

I suggest though, Mr. Wood, that we really haven't done anything more than be able to have a slightly more sophisticated approach than we had at time one, given building on the 1992 legislation.

Mr. Bob Wood: I'd like to follow up on my colleague Mr. Laurin's question about compensation, and by your own admission sir, not all veterans utilized the government's post-war programs. I'd just like your comment on that. If this committee in its wisdom decides to compensate the merchant navy veterans for their lack of access to post-war programs, we obviously will have to compensate, in all good faith, the people who didn't get a chance—other veterans who didn't take advantage of this program.

Do you have any idea how many people are out there who didn't take advantage of this post-war program? I think when you were here before you gave us some numbers—I probably have them here—of people who maybe missed the deadline and now... As you said, we don't want to give an unfair advantage to one group over the other. How many people are we looking at here? This could amount to all kinds of money.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: That's the difficulty and it's why we are concerned about a global amount. It's estimated there are some 400,000 veterans. Veterans Affairs advises us that only 13% of veterans took advantage of either the Veterans' Land Act or education benefits after the war. So there's the balance of that percentage who potentially would come in the door.

Mr. Bob Wood: You also made one other statement when you visited the committee, sir, that addressed the issue of fairness and need. You were saying the other issue you would like to address is whether it is fair to base the compensation on length of service, and I quote you again:

Veterans Affairs Canada has gone out of its way and the Legion has been very much supportive of the concept of basing its programs on need. One should perhaps be very cautious about saying that if you served for six months, you get a certain amount, if you served for six years, you get a greater amount. Translate this into veterans' care. Do you say you only get the veterans independence program for three months if you served for a couple of weeks? It should be based on need.

Now that was you. From what you said last December, can I infer this morning that the Legion would be most favourable to a compensation package that follows a similar rationale, giving the money where it is most needed rather than basing it on cash for time served?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: That would follow, but that's quite distinct from the issue of what were lost opportunities and benefits. Clearly the issue of lost opportunities or benefits over the last 55 years is not going to be needs based, and I suspect that's one of the reasons our executive has chosen to formulate it in terms of a nominal amount.

Whenever you're talking substantive amounts, such as the veterans independence program, that's looking into the future. That is going to be based on need and it's going to be equitable for all categories of veterans. In fact to its credit, Veterans Affairs is almost there now. There are still some things that need to be adjusted.

So what we're talking about is the small portion of the inequity that represents lost opportunities and the inherent unfairness of the legislation for pension that didn't apply the insurance principle prior to 1992. So I think you take the needs-based concept looking forward. You take our concepts, put on the table here, if you're going to look backwards.

• 0955

Almost by definition, when you look backwards, you're not looking at needs based. Those needs have been met somehow up to the present day—maybe not adequately, but they've been met somehow.

Mr. Bob Wood: Also, sir, in response to the question from my colleague Mr. Goldring in December, you mentioned that you thought the Ferry Command might also deserve compensation and you stated:

I would suggest that ferry command are in an equal position, those people who flew the aircraft overseas in very dangerous conditions who are perhaps not as vocal as the merchant navy but were equally disadvantaged.

Are you still of that opinion, that they should also be considered, and should that be looked at by this committee at this time? Also, are there any others that I can think of, such as the Newfoundland foresters, who should also be considered? I think we should, if we're doing this, consider all these groups if in fact they face the identical problems.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: Without jeopardizing the focus on the merchant navy, because clearly that's what has brought things to the table, the Legion very clearly stands behind all the groups that have been disadvantaged. That's why we made that reference to the Ferry Command in particular. But in the second half of the Merchant Navy Veteran and Civilian War-related Benefits Act are all the civilian war-related groups, and they too have suffered some inequities. So what we're hoping is that the formula you achieve today is going to achieve equity for all those groups.

Ferry Command is perhaps the most notable, because there are only some 75 members left, and it's a little easier to draw an analogy between what Ferry Command did and the merchant navy than some of the other civilian war-related groups.

But you're quite correct. The Legion takes the position that we want to make sure all war-related groups are treated fairly in whatever formula this committee decides to come up with.

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

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Wood.

There are two minutes left. Are there other colleagues on this side with questions? If not, I'm going to go to Mr. Earle of—oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Richardson.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): I'm trying to follow the logic of your needs-based argument and the argument you put forward now.

We see the merchant mariners who died in numbers not equaled by any other branch of the service or other groups during the war, and we see also the Ferry Command coming on. They were paid handsomely for their services, not like they were on the ships. There was a monetary compensation that at that time was considered to be considerable. I had some older friends who had served on that, and after the war they started off relatively well.

When you start packing them all together, I see the lineup starting to form here. There is a lot of difference in the compensation they received at the time. Some of it was meant to be for threatening service. Certainly it wasn't easy flying the Ferry Command over the north. But certainly it was a lot tougher to be on those merchant ships, to be hunted out by some U-boat and hardly be defensible.

When we're talking about it, I would wish that we not get into the comparison in a manner that they were all the same. They served, and they served their country, but the benefits of service varied considerably. I would just like to be sure that goes on record here.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: If I might respond to that comment, it's a very valid one. That's the difficulty of going back 55 years after the fact and trying to measure who had harsher service than whom. That's why the needs-based approach in summary is the best way to look forward. You arrive at a certain point in history, and perhaps that is now, when you're looking forward to who needs the veterans independence program, who needs the support of their country. You can equalize that very easily. That's why we're suggesting a somewhat nominal amount for these past inequities, so you don't get into trying to measure with fine precision the imponderables of who had harsher services and for how long.

To briefly comment on the issue of time of service, I think the dangers there, if you started trying to measure any sort of compensation, is that it's a virtually impossible task of achieving equity. If you said three months' service, well what kind of three months? Was that three months in the face of the enemy? Was it three months sitting back in Canada with only two weeks in front of the enemy? These are virtually impossible to measure. So the threshold question for the Legion is, are you a veteran? Were you in veteran-like circumstances? At this stage of time, more than 55 years after the event, perhaps that's the best way to do it—have a fairly simple threshold question and then make sure you're looking forward on a needs basis while you're looking back only with nominal compensation or formulas that address inequities in the two principles we've espoused. These two principles are nominal sum for lost education, Veterans' Land Act, but precision when it comes to disability pensions, because there you will have suffered as a result of your war service, and in that respect anyone who has a disability as a result of the war service, we suggest, should be treated the same.

• 1000

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Earle for 10 minutes and then Mrs. Wayne for 10 minutes.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much for your presentation. I have a bit of concern about the formula you're proposing where you're making a strong attempt to be fair to the uniformed men. I can understand and appreciate that because fairness is a very important principle, but I think the point that's being missed here is that for the uniformed men the opportunity was there. Whether or not they took advantage of it is another question. But for the merchant mariners, from my understanding of the situation, the opportunity was not there. So they didn't have the option of having these benefits, whether it be the disability pensions the same as others or whether it be the educational opportunities and so forth. That's the big difference.

I mean, we can all look at situations in our lives and go back and say if we had taken advantage of this opportunity we would have done such and such, but in that situation the opportunity was there. If the opportunity is excluded from someone, then you're looking at a different situation. I think we have to have that perspective and not try to cut it so fine to the point that we're overly concerned about disadvantaging the uniformed men, because the uniformed men were not disadvantaged; they were advantaged.

I'd like to hear a bit more about why you've made that distinction. I think the point here is that it's been clearly documented and shown that the merchant mariners did suffer an injustice. What we're looking at in this committee is how to rectify that in a way that's fair to them. Okay, you've got to keep in mind other people too, but if the other people were not in the same situation, then I don't think we should lose a lot of time being concerned about that. I think we should be concerned about the merchant mariner situation and try to rectify that situation.

I'd like your comments as to why you've made that fine distinction.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: I'll give you a specific example that shows that concern.

With the merchant navy there were some circumstances under which Veterans' Land Act benefits were available. A merchant navy veteran who was injured in the face of the enemy and was in receipt of a disability pension was eligible. So you've got a subset of merchant navy who were eligible, albeit by more stringent criteria, but nevertheless could have applied for some of those benefits. Some of them may not have as well. So if you don't take into consideration the “who would have done what if only they had known” question, you're going to get some inequities even within the merchant navy, I suspect.

Mr. Gordon Earle: I think myself that we're going to get into a very dangerous kettle of fish if we get into who would have done what if they had known, because we're talking, as you indicate, 55 years ago. I think at this stage the injustice has been clearly documented and the inaction by the government to address this has been clearly documented. I think it's time now for action and not to get caught up in trying to say, okay, if so-and-so had done this way back when, because you're going to open up a whole kettle of fish trying to determine that, and what you're going to end up doing is causing more of an injustice to people who should be qualified.

It may well be that if you take the global approach and recognize that there was an injustice with the merchant mariners, now let's correct that by doing something positive about it, you may end up with maybe the odd person—and I say even that's debatable—who perhaps may get something they shouldn't have been entitled to by the “who would have done what” standard. However, I think they would be much fewer than the people who would be lost otherwise, if you get into trying to track down records and go the route you're suggesting.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: Mr. Earle, that's exactly what we are saying for the global compensation. We're saying you cannot go back and fine-tune and figure out who would have done what and who would have asked for what. Therefore, part of the compensation would be based on a global amount that would be paid to each merchant navy veteran or survivor, and it would be an amount that would be fairly arrived at, considering that not all would have applied. So you couldn't just simply take the amount you would get if somebody got all the maximum benefits, consumer price index increase over the years, and then come up with a sum for each person. You couldn't do that. But it would be a global amount; it wouldn't be fine-tuned.

It's that second aspect, the insurance principle for disability pensions, that we suggest is not overly complex because there are not large numbers who are going to be affected by it. If you ignore that aspect then you will be ignoring those who are disabled as a result of their war service to their country, and you will not be fairly compensating them for the disabilities they have suffered, and that, we think, is an injustice.

Mr. Gordon Earle: When you say you'll be ignoring those who were not fairly compensated, are you talking merchant mariners or are you talking other than merchant mariners?

• 1005

Mr. Rycroft: It would be other than merchant mariners in respect of the disability pension aspect, because that you can measure on a case-by-case basis.

Mr. Gordon Earle: That's where I say my understanding of the situation was that it was different for those other than merchant mariners in that they did have opportunities to have certain benefits, even in the disability area, that the merchant mariners did not have access to. That's why I say I think your concept on the global compensation would apply also to the disability thing, to the total picture.

You said there are very few people you're talking about in terms of merchant mariners, so we're not talking all kinds of money, and we're not talking a lot of benefits that people would not be entitled to that they're going to get all of a sudden. I think at some point you have to apply the principle of giving the benefit of the doubt to those who have been disadvantaged. That's the point I'm making.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: Well, Mr. Earle, there are also not very many in the other groups who would fit into the same category of revisiting their pension situations. It's just that if you decide to do it for the merchant navy, you would do it then, logically, for Ferry Command, because it would relate to a disability incurred in their war service; there's that aspect.

For the other aspect, it's a global amount. It might be one amount for the merchant navy; it might be another amount for Ferry Command because they had higher pay and so forth, but it would still apply the same principle. The principle would be, first, there was a past inequity. What's the dollar value of that? The second one would be, there were some inequities with respect to disability situations. How do we address them?

Mr. Gordon Earle: Okay, let me just make two quick points. You've mentioned other groups, Ferry Command and... To my understanding, the focus of this particular committee at this point in time is to deal with the merchant mariner situation. I appreciate that we have to be fair to other groups, because there are the aboriginal veterans who were mistreated as well, but I don't think we want to get caught up in that today. I think what we want to do is focus on the merchant mariners and try to resolve that issue. We can deal with the other issues in due course.

The other point you mentioned in your comments about the Buchenwald and the Hong Kong veterans getting $20,000 or so... I should correct for the record that the Buchenwald survivors did not get $20,000. The formula that was used was the same as the Hong Kong formula, but they ended up with a mere pittance of about $1,000. That's just for the record so it doesn't appear that the Buchenwald survivors got what perhaps should reflect the tragedy they underwent.

I guess that's all I had on this point at the moment. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Earle.

For the PC party, Mrs. Wayne, 10 minutes.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I'm not sure whether you people have seen the latest video that Cliff Chadderton has done, Sail or Jail. I think when one looks at that you have to take into consideration that the merchant mariners had the largest percentage of loss of life. One out of eight of every one of them were killed.

I'm not sure if this is accurate or not, Mr. Chairman, but I've been told that the fishermen that were asked to watch for German ships coming into the area in the Atlantic and Pacific received all the benefits in the end; they were treated and they received all of the benefits. Fishermen, like everyone else, earn their living through fishing, but our merchant mariners didn't receive all the benefits.

Now, the United States and Great Britain... in Great Britain they made them equal in 1941. They became the fourth arm of the armed forces. You're aware that the United States just recently said there's been an injustice in the merchant navy and they also gave them compensation, but the manner in which they did it was buying an insurance policy for each one of them; that is how they did it.

I don't know what you feel about Cliff Chadderton's breakdown and how he saw it; he submitted that to us and made a presentation. You were saying $5,000. Cliff felt $5,000 was what should be given to someone who made one trip over and one trip back. If you take a look at the benefits that all of our veterans received—and rightfully so, they should have received them; they were offered to them, they didn't all take them, but they were offered to them and rightfully so—but these men who put their necks on the line for us didn't get those benefits.

• 1010

When you look at the amount, and if you go back to 1940 or 1941 and take a look at that... I mean, these boys aren't even asking for that. They're not even asking for that. What they're asking for is some form of compensation here so that finally we say to them, yes, we're putting them now under the War Veterans Allowance Act and they'll get those benefits. But, my God, it's 55 years late.

They're saying, give us this little bit and we're going to go away, and we'll feel that you have really appreciated what we've done in the Second World War. I cannot believe that the Royal Canadian Legion will not endorse that. I cannot believe that.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: I'm not sure, Mrs. Wayne, what you're saying the Royal Canadian Legion won't endorse. There's probably no way that one could arrive at a sum certain of what that sacrifice was worth in dollars. Whether its $20,000, $50,000 or $100,000, it's a symbolic amount.

We represent the merchant navy, uniformed veterans, and their survivors in the disability pension process. Many are at the stage now where they require the veterans independence program and other support from the country, and we want to make sure that the government does the right thing by all the veterans equally in that respect.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Being the Royal Canadian Legion, I can understand that statement. But, Mr. Chairman, we're here today to deal with the merchant navy. You'll be back again—there's no question about that—and we'll be here to listen, hopefully with open minds for all of the other groups as well. But today is for the merchant navy.

When you say to me that if there's going to be a compensation package and those who are on disability, or who should be on disability, should receive it and the others should get $5,000, I find that awfully hard.

I have to tell you, having had two brothers over there who wouldn't have come back if they hadn't had the food... For God's sake, Great Britain wouldn't have survived if it hadn't been for what they took over there, and we probably would have lost the bloody war. It's just about time we recognized it and all of us came together and said, this is our way of saying we recognize you fully now; we recognize the fatality rate you have; we recognize all that you've done. I feel very, very strongly about this.

I know we've had all kinds of packages put on the table, but the one Cliff Chadderton put on the table... My God, when you look at the numbers that are left out there, it wouldn't hurt any of us, and it wouldn't hurt the government either. We've got enough money, Mr. Chairman, for God's sake. And it went into general revenue, God bless you. Anyway, we'll get it back out of general revenue, and we will make that package and shake hands with them on behalf of all Canadians to thank them. I would hope to God that the Royal Canadian Legion is going to support us.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: Let me clear up a misapprehension. Nowhere did we ever say that the nominal amount would be the same for each of the groups. We outlined two principles. The principles were one of global compensation and disability pension insurance principal compensation. Those two principles—and that's all we're here to say today—should apply. They may apply in different dollar amounts, and we'd have no grief with that, because those dollar amounts are going to be based on the circumstances as you measure them.

We're also not here to advocate for the other groups today. You're quite right. This is the time for the merchant navy to have their consideration. When we come back next time, we wouldn't want you to say to us, well, why didn't you bring up these other groups. So we want to make sure it's in the context of that. But you're quite right, the focus today is on the merchant navy.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Wayne.

Colleagues, we'll start a second round of questioning for five minutes per questioner, with Mr. Goldring again for the Reform party.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you very much. I want to go over again what we were just talking about here, so that we're very clear on it, that the application for the merchant navy is not to be confused or compared with other compensation, because it's apples and oranges. They are different situations. The situations are so different in each one that the similarity may be, as I said before, the simple word “ex gratia”. From there, what we're trying to explore today, in my mind, is some vehicle to allow the compensation to move forward.

• 1015

I've asked this question: is it my interpretation that your organization, the Royal Canadian Legion, is suggesting that—and this is just a suggestion—number one, the global ex gratia payment is $5,000, and that the number two consideration be a scale based on prior insurance principle, which would be worked out on a sliding scale of what percentage of disability? These are your suggestions. You're not being hard and fast. But you do recognize that merchant navy concerns have existed for 50-some-odd years and that it's time to put this thing away and to compensate.

We are in a room together for the first time ever, I believe, discussing how we can do this. Your organization is fully supportive of this and the proposals you put forward are suggestions to try to help the government come to some idea on how to do this. Is this correct?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: Yes, that's absolutely correct, Mr. Goldring. Just as that dollar is not something you're locked into, it simply represents a symbolic or representative amount. It's for you to decide what an appropriate amount would be. You're going to hear representations from other groups over the next weeks that will guide you to a better precision in that regard.

Mr. Peter Goldring: So should your presentation be on the tail end of these meetings, your hindsight might be able to have a more accurate suggested number and figure, and you fully expect others to come forward with some suggestions as well.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: We thought not, Mr. Goldring. The Royal Canadian Legion has a very broad base of veterans that it represents. So perhaps it's best that we do go first and that we paint the broad picture, and then you concentrate on the merchant navy and you hear the specifics for merchant navy as the various groups go on.

I think on balance, although there are advantages and disadvantages both ways, it's better to have the global broad-based veteran picture painted first and then focus in over the coming days on the merchant navy.

Mr. Peter Goldring: But the very important point that I want to understand very clearly here is that the Royal Canadian Legion is fully supportive of having these compensation suggestions put forward, with all sincerity and with a strong request for the government to address this concern and come to a resolution on the compensation issue before the summer.

Mr. Allan Parks: That's exactly correct. It's certainly a sub-executive decision when it comes right down to it. From the February meeting, that was their go-ahead and that's the way we presented it here today.

Mr. Peter Goldring: So there are two very important issues really to be underlined. One is your suggestion on how to do this, and the second very important one is not to misconstrue your numbers as being hesitant on coming up with a resolve, but that your numbers are your organization's good intentions of a suggestion to put forward, and that your organization is totally supportive of the merchant navy's claims for some form of compensation.

Mr. Allan Parks: Yes.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Clouthier, we have five minutes for this side now.

Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.): Just so I have it perfectly clear in my mind what the Legion is recommending, your recommendation is a global ex gratia payment to all merchant mariners.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: Or survivors.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: Or survivors. Also, as a secondary component to that compensation package, you're saying that all merchant navy mariners who applied for a disability will deserve extra payment based on the insurance claim?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: That's correct.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: Would you put a paradigm on that? Would there be a certain timeframe to that after the war?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: No. We said there has to be some evidence that the person, on their disability pension situation, approached government or has some evidence. They can't just now say, well, I would have put in if only I'd known. They actually have to have come forward and there has to be some record or evidence that an application was made, albeit rejected because it didn't meet the insurance principle.

Simply to represent that those who did come in have a manifestly unfair situation facing them, they approached their government, they can prove it, and they've got no recourse now—we want to give them that recourse. We are not aware of what those numbers would be, but we suspect that they will be relatively small.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: But would there be a timeframe on that?

• 1020

Mr. Jim Rycroft: There would be no timeframe restriction. Somebody who wrote in 1945 could point back to that evidence and say, I applied in 1945 and I was rejected.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: What about someone who did that in 1955 or 1965?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: It would be the same thing.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: What about 1997?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: Anybody after 1992 would be excluded because they would already have had the right to apply and would have had the answer yes on their application, so they have been dealt with. It's simply to extend that 1992 principle back in time for those who actually approached with their claim.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: But they would have to have clear proof of that. The ex gratia payment of $5,000 would be to anyone who served.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: That's correct, anybody who qualified for merchant navy, and we think using the definition of merchant navy under Bill C-61 would be a good way to determine who was merchant navy.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: So that $5,000 payment is hard and fast in your mind.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: Whatever amount it is. But what we're suggesting is that it is a symbolic recognition that represents an amount that cannot simply be calculated. You may decide that it should be more. That's for you to decide. But it is an amount that tries to capture the intangible.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Clouthier.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin, do you have any further questions?

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Rycroft, there is something somewhat astonishing about your position. I find it somewhat regrettable that two organizations, who don't seem to have quite the same concerns, are speaking on behalf of the merchant seamen. I'm astonished that you are taking so much trouble to warn us against any decision that might possibly prejudice the other forces, and I am afraid that this may hurt the merchant seamen. The best way for the government to avoid creating an injustice for other groups is to give as little as possible so that those groups won't complain. If this were the premise, the merchant seamen might not receive a fair amount.

I find this rather regrettable, and I wonder why the Canadian Merchant Navy Veterans Association doesn't establish these criteria, criteria that you would decide to either support or reject. Obviously, if you're not on the same wavelength, that's no better. The ideal would be for you to speak with one voice and to agree on the same solution. Don't you think so?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: We merely have to consider that if at some time in the future, we discover that other groups have been unfairly treated, we will have to find a formula to also provide those groups with a fair solution.

We are not speaking on behalf of merchant seamen, but on behalf of all veterans. I hope you are aware that we completely agree that merchant seamen should receive compensation. The issue is not to prejudge their case, but simply to point out that they are not the only group in the broader context of veterans.

Mr. René Laurin: At present, are other groups being treated unfairly?

Mr. Jim Rycroft: People always claim there are small injustices towards some group or another. The Pensions Act will never be perfect. It always needs small improvements. The situation is not perfect at present, but it is as fair as it has been in the past, thanks to Bill C-61. I think that it is basically fair towards all groups.

Mr. René Laurin: So you are saying that at present, the situation of the other groups is acceptable.

• 1025

Mr. Jim Rycroft: If you are thinking of an amount to make up for past injustices, you will have to consider that these injustices apply, to some extent, to the others.

Mr. René Laurin: That's fine, but by trying to be fair to everyone, we run the risk of being unfair to the very group that has never been compensated. If we seek fairness overzealously, we will remain unfair and perpetuate an injustice that has existed for 50 years.

Mr. Jim Rycroft: This is the challenge the committee faces.

Mr. René Laurin: Yes, obviously.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Laurin.

[English]

Are there any other questioners on the government side? Seeing none, I'll go to Mr. Earle again for five minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Gordon Earle: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with Mr. Laurin.

[English]

I think sometimes we have to recognize that fairness doesn't necessarily mean treating everybody the same. If someone is more seriously disadvantaged than someone else, then fairness may mean giving that particular situation something over and above what someone else gets. That way we create fairness.

I just want to comment briefly on your reference to compensation being symbolic. I agree with you 100% that we could never put a price tag on the sacrifice the merchant mariners made for our country. But I don't think we're really putting a price tag on the sacrifices made by merchant mariners. I think what we're putting a price tag on here is the injustice that was caused to them after the war, the unfair treatment by their government and by their country. This is what we're looking at.

I think when we look at the fact that compensation in that regard is still going to be symbolic, we have to recognize that we live in a very practical world, and justice must not only be done but also it must be seen to be done. So we don't want to add insult to injury by making the symbol so insignificant that it really does not constitute any kind of fairness at all. I think that even though we're talking about symbolism in terms of compensation, we have to deal with the reality of today's world, and I think any compensation has to be meaningful within today's context and within the environment in which we now find ourselves.

I make that point not just for yourself but also for the government side as they listen to this presentation and as we as a committee wrestle with this so that we don't end up just doing something that creates a further situation of unfairness.

I relate again to the situation with the Hong Kong and Buchenwald vets where the same formula was used but they were two different situations. It ended up with perhaps unfairness in one situation, because we were trying to have this overabundance of fairness in treating everybody the same. I think each situation should be taken on its own merit. That's why we're here today, to deal with the merchant mariners on the merits of their situation and their claim for compensation due to the injustice cause. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Earle. Once again, are there any questions from the majority side? Again seeing none, I'll go to Mrs. Wayne for five minutes.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Mr. Chairman, I know the Prime Minister is in favour of compensation for the merchant navy vets because on June 29, 1992, when he was the leader of the opposition, he wrote a letter to Mr. Phil Etter, the gentleman who sits to my left, and in it he said that the House of Commons had approved legislation for compensation for merchant marine veterans, and he talked about their valiant service and so on and the need for compensation.

I just want to say this, Mr. Chairman. Sir Winston Churchill stated:

The Battle of the Atlantic was not won by any Navy or Air force, it was won by the courage, fortitude and determination of the Allied Merchant Navies.

Also, it has been stated that the battle to right history's wrong is before us today. We have to correct it, Mr. Chairman. I note that in Australia they recognize them as well. We haven't done that in the manner in which we should. We did it in 1992, but not as equals, by putting them under the Civilian War War Pensions and Allowances Act.

Now we're making that change with Bill C-61. But there is a further need, and that's why I tabled that motion, Mr. Chairman, to allow us to all work together for Bill C-61.

• 1030

Also, speaking in London in 1945, General Dwight Eisenhower said:

Every man in this Allied command is quick to express his admiration for the loyalty, courage, and fortitude of the officers and men of the Merchant Marine. We count upon their efficiency and their utter devotion to duty as we do our own; they have never failed us yet and in all the struggles yet to come we know that they will never be deterred by any danger, hardship, or privation. When final victory is ours, there is no organization that will share its credit more deservedly than the Merchant Marine.

I say this, Mr. Chairman, and I say this to our colleagues and friends in the Royal Canadian Legion. They need your support fully. There's no question about that. I do think if we all come together we will find a solution whereby they receive the compensation they have deserved for the last 55 years.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Wayne.

I see no further questioners, so I want to, on behalf of the committee, thank Mr. Parks and Mr. Rycroft for attending today and sharing their views with us. We appreciate your time. Thank you.

Can I propose a very brief two-minute chairman's recess for personal breaks. We'll reconvene in a moment.

Thank you.

• 1035

• 1038

The Chairman: Could we reconvene after that short recess.

I'm pleased to welcome the Canadian Merchant Navy Veterans Association here this morning. We have Mr. Aurele Ferlatte, President, Captain Hill Wilson, and Mr. Ossie MacLean. I believe the three gentlemen will be addressing some remarks to the committee. Welcome, gentlemen. Who will start off your presentation?

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte (President, Canadian Merchant Navy Veterans Association): I'll be there in a minute.

The Chairman: Okay.

The members do have in their possession, or have received earlier, the submission prepared by Mr. Ferlatte and Captain Wilson dans les deux langues officielles and a second submission from Captain Wilson, also available in both official languages.

We appreciate your submissions, gentlemen, and we're now happy to turn to your verbal remarks. Mr. Ferlatte, please.

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: I want to first thank the committee. We'll start off by asking Captain Hill Wilson to present his brief. Then we'll ask Ossie to present his, and then I will wrap it up.

The Chairman: Very good. Thank you.

Captain Wilson, we're in your hands.

Captain Hill Wilson (Canadian Merchant Navy Veterans Association): Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and ladies and gentlemen of the committee. I'm pleased to be here today and I thank you for the opportunity. Before I go on with my brief, having listened to the Legion members and having listened to their brief on behalf of merchant seamen, I'm concerned with two statements contained in their brief. I'd like your indulgence, as I would like to address my concerns.

• 1040

Pardon me, I have double sight this morning, sir. It has nothing to do with St. Patrick's Day, but I have to close one eye to see what I'm doing here.

First, there is the statement that:

Veterans Affairs Canada has indicated that only some 13% of Army, Navy and Air Force veterans took advantage of either of these benefits for which all were eligible.

I assume the 13% figure is correct. However, what was not included in their brief was the fact that the other 87% of military veterans were given job preference when they came home and that was unavailable to merchant seamen.

The armed forces veterans went off to war with the knowledge and understanding that upon returning from the war their jobs and seniority were guaranteed. Those who did not have a job prior to joining the forces were put at the head of the lineup for available jobs, but not so the merchant seamen. We were at the back of the bus or the back of the line.

There was another figure there of 75% relating to the percentage of merchant seamen veterans getting benefits from Veterans Affairs Canada, and it appears to me that this is insupportable.

I had a similar discussion three years ago with a senior member of the minister's staff, Mr. MacAulay's staff it was at that time, and my understanding was that they were using figures from an outside source. The 75% was predicated on the number of veteran merchant seamen estimated to be alive at that time, and that was by that source. I know where the figure came from and it's not correct. I would suggest to you half the 75% to be closer to the truth.

Now, my brief. Previously I submitted a personal brief to each of you and I sent three books to you, Mr. Chairman, which I had written or produced. I'm really well aware of the volume of briefs and research material presented to your committee by several groups on behalf of merchant seamen over the past several months, and I believe more are to be presented in the next while.

I am sure all members are intimately familiar with all of the background information, but I would like briefly to present to you my personal observations on the shameful treatment meted out by our previous governments to merchant seamen after the war.

These were the brave, skilful men of whom Rear Admiral Leonard Murray—I think Mrs. Wayne was incorrect; it was the commander of the northwest Atlantic, not Churchill who said “the Battle of the Atlantic was not won by any Navy or Air force, it was won by the courage, fortitude and determination of the Allied Merchant Navies”.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Darling, Winston Churchill said it and Admiral Murray copied him.

Capt Hill Wilson: Did he? There you go. It got out to us anyway.

I would like to really put a human face on the seafarers Admiral Murray was speaking about.

May I say at the outset that I fully support and concur with the views to be expressed by our president, Mr. Aurele Ferlatte, of the Canadian Merchant Navy Veterans Association, representing approximately 1,600 merchant navy veterans. My brief today will add to what he will put before you.

Who were these merchant seamen of Canada offering their lives to help defend the free world? Most who sailed the oceans of the world in time of war are now living in the final phase of their lives, and our youngsters are 70 years of age or close to it. But back then, when Canada's need was urgent, they were the raw recruits who manned the ships urgently needed to keep the supply lines to wherever the war machine, hungry for supplies, required.

They were young, vibrant, and impressionable, eager to answer the country's call. They came from the farms of the prairies, from the coastal villages and towns, or from the great industrial cities in the central region of our country, and from the towns and villages of Quebec. I would remind you that approximately 40% of our merchant navy casualties were from Quebec.

• 1045

Adequately trained personnel to run the merchant ships were nearly non-existent in Canada, so certificated officers were imported from other countries, mostly Britain. The certificated officers that we had available basically all joined the Royal Canadian Navy, and they were the backbone of the corvette navy.

In any case, the majority of our Canadian seamen came out of high school, some too young by far to be going to war, but they did. Some left their paper routes, quit their office or farm jobs, and others came from many other walks of life, making a motley crew. The sound of their names indicated that their folks came from many nationalities, cultures, and religious beliefs, but after a period of time all melded into a cohesive group and they became competent merchant seamen. Although they were completely new to the job, they did what they were required as best they could, learning quickly.

The men I sailed with did not expect much from their government. They had gone about their business of being seamen, aided in the cause of defeat of the enemy, and were glad they had survived the war. They believed their government when they were told that a post-war career in the Canadian merchant navy would be possible. They were probably incapable of understanding the economics facing the shipping companies, but trusted government would understand, so they fully expected to have ships to sail on for the rest of their working lives.

They did expect and deserve truth from their government, but did they get it? Some suffered horribly for their efforts, from flaming oil, shrapnel, or the shock of attack by torpedo, explosion of bomb or mine. Having abandoned their sinking ships in lifeboats or rafts or no more than a life jacket, they suffered the ravages of exposure, hunger, and a slow, freezing, and certainly agonizing death. They did not have the same support their military friends had to fight off the effects of trauma and stress suffered after these experiences, but most would, without hesitation, sign on the next ship as soon as possible. After all, in the early part of the war their pay was actually stopped as soon as their ship was sunk from under them.

The Honourable C.D. Howe, in his role as Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, had this to say of our seamen, and I quote:

Among the many records of heroic action during the last war, the service of merchant seamen sailing in combat areas deserves a high place. These men carried out their daily tasks under constant threat from enemy submarines and surface vessels. Those who lost their lives in the merchant service deserve the same measure of recognition as those who lost their lives in active combat.

But why not recognition for the survivors? He went on to say, and I quote:

Had our merchant ships not been equipped with crews willing to face the dangers of enemy action, many parts of the United Kingdom would have faced starvation and the war might very well have been lost on that account. Canada's merchant seamen willingly faced the situation and in doing so played a dominant part in the winning of the war.

These are the same people Admiral Murray praised for their courage, but when hostilities ceased they were either displaced from their jobs by the sale of ships or if they left voluntarily had difficulty finding jobs ashore because armed forces veterans were given preference for the available jobs. Or if they tried to upgrade their education, they found themselves in a completely different category to their military comrades in relation to the benefits available.

What was behind the promises given by Canada to these men to encourage them to stay at sea in the first place? The promise of a lifetime career at sea and the encouragement given to remain with their ships in the post-war period. Could this be explained by one of the many epithets attributable to Winston Churchill and used on friend rather than foe—and I quote: “In war-time, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies”.

Now, perhaps lies were not the order of the day as it relates to the wartime merchant seamen or as they continued in their career after hostilities were over. However, there appears to be some evidence to support the fact that the truth about future employment or a lifetime career at sea for merchant seamen was not quite as supportable as the seamen were led to believe.

• 1050

The Honourable C.D. Howe, in his capacity as Minister of Munitions and Supply, whose department was responsible for the building of ships, stated, and I quote:

...it is my hope that the ships built during the war will also serve Canada's needs, in large degree, after the war...

What he added in the House was this, and I quote:

As far as the present building programme is concerned, we are building a ship that we know Canada will need, ships that will stand on their merits, ships that will be the backbone of any post-war merchant fleet that Canada will require.

In the previous year the minister said, and I quote:

We expect that the Canadian Merchant Marine will be a substantial source of employment in the post-war years and that it will be of real benefit to Canadian post-war commerce.

But then came along the Honourable Mr. Michaud, Minister of Transport. He does not appear to have agreed with Mr. Howe on this matter, for he has been reported as saying in a public address, “I see no future in Canada going into the shipping business on a large scale after the war”.

I ask all committee members, which of these two learned parliamentary gentlemen do you suppose was right?

It must be remembered that less than ten years prior to these statements, which were made in the mid-war era, Canada had sold the last of the ships of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, the CGMM, in 1936—ships which had been built for service in the great war but unfortunately completed too late to assist in that war. Our government had experienced the hard way the futility of competing in the shipping world with ships that were outdated and certainly not economical to run. Have the politicians of the day not learned from this? Surely they must have.

What types of ships did our Canadian merchant seamen sail on during World War II? Surely they did not expect the 10,000-ton “Park” type of ship, which are described as 10-knot, large, general-purpose freighters and tankers, which carried a greater number of crew members than the newer ships that were coming on line and had only two-thirds of their speed of 15 knots. I refer to the “Victory” class of ships of the United States, which they had been building since mid-war. The British had been engaged in a similar shipbuilding program, with new, efficient, economical ships, including motor ships, from 1943 onward.

The book The Behar Massacre illustrates the type of ship the British were building at the time. It sadly also tells of the tragic story of one such ship, where a number of her crew were murdered by the Japanese after she was sunk in the Indian Ocean. That was the Imperial Japanese Navy, and the admiral who came up with that particular thing was executed after the war. The book is well worth reading.

Our Canadian “Park” ships had been built from a pre-war British design that had been selected because of its simplicity in the building process and simplicity for the new and initially untrained crews to operate. The ships, although well constructed by our Canadian shipyard workers, were highly labour-intensive to run, uneconomical in fuel consumption, and along with their American counterpart, the “Liberty” ship, were really a post-war prize for nations with low wage scales.

At the end of hostilities there were 40% more of this type of vessel, the 10-knot general-purpose freighters, than there had been pre-war, as opposed to the percentage of specialized ships, which was much smaller than pre-war.

In the United States, shipping policy had developed to a stage where a bill before Congress known as HR4486 sought to set up a formula for the disposal by the government of the vast fleet of merchant ships they would own after the war. As far as one can judge from the complicated nature of the formula, the result would be a price of about one-third the cost of the ship, which meant in general terms a figure of about $60 to $70 per ton deadweight. But the terms were to be generous: 12.5% cash and the balance over 20 years. The Americans had 3,000 or 4,000 ships to sell to foreigners, which would be in direct competition with Canadian post-war shipping.

It would turn out that the United States and Great Britain would, and indeed had to, jointly contrive a mutually agreed policy, but there still remains the fact that other marine nations had plans for national fleets, as was the case after the last war.

• 1055

Several nations would seek to build up their merchant fleets. Norway, Sweden, Belgium, Holland, Greece, and Yugoslavia would all have claims to rehabilitate and, if possible, increase their shipping. The Free French committee had already stated their claim to a reasonable share of the world's shipping. The Greek government had, according to reports of the time, expressed the view that after the war they should be entitled to a reparation payment in shipping to the extent of at least 50 liners and an adequate volume of tramp tonnage.

The Polish government had officially stated that Poland must have a merchant fleet of one million tons. The Argentine government embarked on a ship-owning program, which they had already begun, and proposed to expand its national fleet to 100 ships after the war, according to Jose Bares, manager of the state fleet, for use in inter-American trades.

Premier Chiang Kai-shek was reported to have stated that China would need 3.5 million tons of shipping in the first 10 years after the war. The Soviet Union, hitherto a small shipowner, was to decide to embark on a large scale of operation, and they did.

Other nations, including our neighbour, the United States, provided protection in the form of subsidies to maintain their shipping, but our Canadian government did not do so. The only incentive was to require the Canadian shipowners who had purchased the ships from the Park Steamship company to put the money from the resale of those ships to foreigners in escrow for the upgrading of their Canadian fleets. However, most of the escrow money went into the building of coastal vessels. I only know of three foreign-going ships that were built under that scheme, but somehow coastal tugs for British Columbia and ships for a Great Lakes company or two apparently benefited from these escrow moneys instead.

Are we seriously to believe the Honourable C.D. Howe was not sufficiently knowledgeable to realize these wartime emergency ships, the 10-knot general purpose ships that he was referring to and of which there was an overabundance, were uneconomical for a Canadian company to run due to the number of crew required to man them? What miracles were we to expect that would enable a Canadian company to run these ships in competition with the British, the Greeks, the Italians, or a multitude of other countries where the wage scale was so much less than in Canada and without a subsidy for Canadian shipping? Nonsense.

Mr. J.V. Clyne, in his commission report shortly after the war, said the following:

The cost of operating a Canadian flag ship is the second highest in the world. In comparing the daily operating costs (excluding fuel oil and depreciation) of similar ships of nine nations, the United States comes first with the sum of $972.52, Canada comes second with $810.50, the United Kingdom ranks sixth with $525.46 and Italy is last with a daily rate of $421.71.

Are we to believe this was not discernible a couple of years earlier to the Honourable C.D. Howe, who as minister would have a large and adequate research staff available to him, I'm sure? Or is it possible he wanted to have the ships manned and active in order to make them more attractive to foreign buyers, rather than mothball them? Could this have been sufficient reason to deny demobilization benefits to merchant seaman to assure a ready supply of manpower and, a further quote, “that my government recover its investment”, as was stated by Commissioner J.V. Clyne?

The Premier of Nova Scotia, the former Minister of National Defence for Naval Services, the Right Honourable Angus L. MacDonald, had this to say:

From mid-summer, 1940, to the end of the war, I was in a position to see and to understand the nature of the risks that all Merchant Seamen had to run and the hardships which they had to experience. I can say with assurance that were it not for the gallantry of the Merchant Service navies of Canada, Great Britain and the United States, the war might well have been lost, with all that such an eventuality would mean to the free countries of the world.

All honour to the Merchant Seamen of the Allied Nations. May their heroic sacrifices and gallant service never be forgotten by our people.

• 1100

It would seem that Canadian merchant seamen were forgotten, hoodwinked, and ignored by governments of Canada for 50 years. Now, 55 years later, they are to be accepted as war veterans, and we thank our government for that. However, our military comrades whom we respect and admire, through the grants given to them, which they richly deserved, got the jump on us. It is now catch-up time.

To sum up, the young men of Canada joined up to serve their country and to sacrifice their lives, if need be, in the vital and dangerous wartime effort to keep the supply lines going. At that time their heroism was unstintingly and deservedly praised by those in high places. But when war was over, these brave men, although told in wartime again and again that their career at sea was assured, found these promises were empty.

Those in high administerial places must have known, or chose to turn blind eyes or deaf ears, that the conditions of the Canadian merchant service were not viable without strong support and ships other than the slow, uneconomical vessels available in Canada. That support was not offered. The Canadian merchant service was decimated. The undertakings to her seamen were not honoured.

Mr. Chairman, if I may, I will inject a personal note here. In 1953 I was 25 years of age when I was paid off my last Canadian flagship, the S.S. Sicamous. She had been sold to a Greek company. The S.S. Sicamous had been my home. I was her chief officer for the previous year and a half, and we had just completed our second trip to war-torn Korea. I can attest to the fact that our Canadian seamen who crewed that ship were second to none.

I say that with confidence, for as a marine pilot on the B.C. coast with 26 years and 3,014 assignments on foreign-going ships under my belt, and from having piloted small Soviet and Polish fishing vessels, to the stately love boats such as the Royal Princess, to the mighty battleship USS Missouri or the massive nuclear aircraft carrier USS Nimitz, there was not a crew on any one of these ships that could top our Canadian seamen. You should be proud of them. Our men worked hard and, when the few opportunities presented themselves, played hard. But the ship always came first. They were proud of her.

Yet in the summer of 1953, that crew of the Canadian flagship S.S. Sicamous were unceremoniously dumped. Looking back, one can almost hear the words issuing forth from Ottawa: “So long fellows. Take care. See you in the next war.”

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, I sincerely hope you will do the honourable thing and on behalf of the people of Canada bring an end to this festering, long-standing injustice and recommend to government that they make an equitable settlement to all merchant navy veterans and their widows. They deserve no less. Again, I thank you for this opportunity to submit this brief. Merci.

The Chairman: Thank you, Captain Hill. It was a very interesting and eloquent brief, I'm sure we would all agree.

Mr. Maclean.

Mr. Ossie MacLean (Canadian Merchant Navy Veterans Association): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen and Mr. Chairman. My brief is short and sweet, but I want to say a few things regarding the Royal Canadian Legion. The remarks today were burning my ears. The doors weren't open for the merchant seamen in 1926 until just lately. I have men back in New Brunswick. They wouldn't allow them to join the Royal Canadian Legion. I have a man in Grand Manan Island, where you could join the Legion under a civilian. When they say they're backing the merchant navy, it is false, and I can back it all up.

• 1105

This meeting here today—and I thank you very much for keeping your word by bringing us back here—is for the merchant navy and the merchant navy only. Other victims will have their day here, but the hunger strikers brought this to the table, and I hope they will see it through to the end, you fine gentlemen and ladies.

For example, eleven and a half days on a hunger strike and you get the likes of this in the mail. It's for the 75th anniversary of the air force—congratulations. It's 96 pages. I will give you a medal if you can find the initials MN in there, of the hunger strikers, or the names of any in the merchant navy. The only ones you'll find in there are the ones who are dying and they're on the back page.

For those two gentlemen to sit here... We need their support. We need everybody's support. We need the committee's support. But to sit there and listen to them... it was all I could do to be quiet. Elsie Wayne told me to be quiet.

The Chairman: She can do that.

Mr. Ossie MacLean: I'm not made that way. I even asked the VAC 69th five years ago to write to this committee and to Veterans Affairs. The president called me up on the telephone the next day and said “Veterans Affairs says you're getting everything, so how can I write to them?”

What comes into my mind I have to say.

Anyway, gentlemen, I hope you people all looked at this and listened to Sail or Jail. It's a great tape of Cliff Chadderton. I knew half of what was going on, but after listening to this, it burned me over. I hope and pray to God that you young men, whippersnappers, will sit down and look at that great tape and the great book they put out—53 years too late. It is a fantastic book, and I appreciate the lovely letter that came with it from the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I said it had to go into the schools, but I made sure it went into the schools in New Brunswick because I got 25 of them.

There's a man by the name of Richard Lightly. He was in the army. He watched that tape, he and five other army men. He called me up on a Sunday night. He said “Mr. McLean, I didn't really know what our Canadian government did to you fellows, so about the only thing I can do for you people... I'm ordering five of them, one for myself, and I'm giving the other four to you to put into two high schools in the city of Saint John, one to UNB in Saint John, and one in Fredericton. You have a grandson going to college. Give him one to take to the dean.” That is on the way now. I appreciate it.

My brief is very short. This is a reminder to this committee that dangers to wartime merchant seamen did not end in 1945, but rather, in 1947, possibly due to mines remaining in all oceans.

In 1994, I think, when we put the book in the Peace Tower, Sheila Copps, the deputy minister, made the statement right there that these brave heroes, the merchant navy, their war was not over until 1947. So when you're looking at a man who joined the merchant navy in the middle of 1945 and sailed until 1948, he has two and a half years of service, not just a half a year.

It is suggested that an act of Parliament provide extended benefits, pension allowance, and the veterans independent program, which will finally provide that which is long overdue to merchant navy veterans. This should also include survivors benefits. I must remind you that the Honourable Brian Mulroney gave the Japanese $21,500 for the next of kin, not just to the widows but to the grandchildren, and I think that should apply to the merchant navy next of kin, not just the widows.

• 1110

Number three—as we go along I dig a lot of stuff up. A member of the military who served six months to a year in wartime but never left Canada was entitled to the benefits. It is therefore recommended that the merchant navy veterans be entitled to a benefit. Cliff Chadderton said $5,000; I say $15,000 to $30,000 for extended time served. It is also recommended that a monthly pension be paid in the amount of $150 to surviving merchant navy veterans. To the benefit of federal coffers, we are losing... which is not correct, I guess, but Captain Hill Wilson mentioned it to us today.

Monetary remuneration received should be tax free.

With reference to the last post fund, it would be preferred that a one-time compensation benefit be set using a scale from a maximum of $22,500 for full-time service, decreasing to $11,000. The last post fund was brought down from $22,500 to $11,000, and I think it should be brought back up to $22,500.

A disability pension should not be penalized or clawed back upon receipt of the old age pension. When you get a disability pension for years, why should you lose it when you get your old age pension? I had a disability pension since 1982, when I fell off a roof building houses for the government. When I turned 65 it went out the door. I'm still disabled. I don't think that's fair. If you gentlemen here were on a disability pension and you ended up getting your old age pension, I don't think your disability pension would be cut, I'll bet you.

Veteran seamen should be issued a veteran's medical card to indicate that they are war veterans, for their medical problems. You're all wondering what these things are. That's not just for merchant navy veterans. I'm talking about all veterans now. Here's a bottle of cough syrup. I'm under the VIP. I'm a poor man, but when I go to the drug store, and for any other veteran who has to have it—it's a narcotic, but I don't get drunk on it—it costs $25. The provincial government, Veterans Affairs, nobody will pay a dollar for it. That's not fair. If you're going to cut the benefits from ordinary people, for the love of God, don't cut it from the veterans who saved the world, not just Canada.

I might go back for just a second. I was one of the lucky ones to go to the Battle of the Atlantic in 1992. When the bishop made his speech, he had to add a little thing to the end of it. Without the merchant navy of the world, which brought the bacon and eggs, ammunition, fuel, and everything, England would have been lost, and it was too far for Canada and the United States to ever get it back again.

Number two, this is a heating pad that goes on your neck and down across your shoulders. I have vertebrae trouble. I got a prescription from my doctor to go and get it. The druggist tells me “Mr. McLean, they only pay $15.” I said, “What are you talking about?” They brought over a little pad, that big, for warming your hands in the wintertime. “Give me my prescription back” I said. “We'll see about this.”

• 1115

I called the DVA in Saint John, New Brunswick—and by the way, this is $39.99 plus tax. They told me I would have to call Halifax. So I called Halifax, and Halifax said, no, we only pay $15. Then I said “I'll have to buy four of them.” They said no, no you can't do that.

I made three phone calls and couldn't get any answer. So I called my good friend, who we met up here last time, Verna, from P.E.I., and she said that voice sounded familiar. So I told her my problem. She said, “I'll make a call to Halifax, Mr. MacLean.” They called me Friday afternoon and said, this lady says they're all out of there, and we'll get back to you Monday morning.

Well, they got back to me Monday morning, and after about three more phone calls, I finally got a man who said they'd look at it, and I'd have to get my doctor to write a letter. I said, “Listen. I've been two and a half weeks trying to get this pad. You're going to tell me that I've got to go back to my doctor. Do I have to call Ottawa or somebody?”

Now I'm not talking just for myself. I know other people who have had this experience.

Mr. Wood, pay attention.

Mr. Bob Wood: I am.

Mr. Ossie MacLean: Thank you.

Anyway, I finally got it. They called me up and said, “We'll pay for it. Give me half an hour to call the drugstore, then go down and get it.”

I would like to see some of these laws changed. A $15 payment—that was when they had hot water bottles, in 1945.

Now I've got only a couple more things here. The term “high seas” should be changed to “dangerous waters”, because you take the men that sailed in the St. Lawrence River... That is coastal waters, right? There were a lot of men killed in the St. Lawrence River. I think that should be changed, from “high seas” to “dangerous waters”.

Should the last post fund not absorb the costs of a merchant navy veteran's funeral expense? If they don't pay for it, to get a headstone for the veteran, you've got to wait five years. That should be done in a period of six months.

Your travel costs should be increased to a minimum of 28 cents per kilometre from 11 cents per kilometre for the province of New Brunswick. Other provinces are to be adjusted in accordance with the federal rate presently in effect.

Once the amount of payment and benefits are finalized, a date should be set for when merchant navy veterans are to receive these cheques and benefits.

That is my short brief. I will mention one more thing. We are going to be giving this committee a mandate, but I am going to leave that up to our president, Mr. Ferlatte. I want to thank you ladies and gentlemen very much, and I hope and pray to God that you will do the right thing. I don't want to go on another hunger strike.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. MacLean.

I'll make just two points before I go to Mr. Ferlatte.

I think I know what you mean. With all due respect, the mandate of committee members comes from the Canadian people, who elected us from various parties to be members of Parliament. We've been duly assigned to this committee. So that's really where our mandate comes from. That's what you and the other veterans fought to ensure.

The other point that I think needs to be said again, with all due respect, is that you're here not because of any hunger strike, but because as Canadians you requested the right that you have to appear before a parliamentary committee. We hear literally thousands of delegations at various committees across Canada. You and the other veterans fought for that.

Just for clarification, you're here, and all that was necessary was a simple request, according to our procedure, that you have the right to appear. We're very happy you're here today.

We'll go to Mr. Ferlatte.

• 1120

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: Mr. Chairman, the discussions that took place at the meeting of your committee on November 26, 1998, had as their focus the Canadian government's record of failure to provide adequate pensions, allowances, and rehabilitation benefits to Canada's wartime merchant navy veterans who served during World War II. My colleagues and I acknowledge that we have been briefed concerning the principles of the omnibus bill in the course of a meeting attended by Mr. Robert Wood, the parliamentary secretary, and Mr. Richard Brunton, an executive on the staff of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Nevertheless, we were not allowed to discuss the bill on the grounds that the bill was not on the table at the meeting of November 26, 1998.

Circumstances change, and we now understand that the purpose of this hearing is to provide a forum to accommodate the views of the Canadian Merchant Navy Veterans Association and those of other organizations with respect to the contents of Bill C-61, keeping in mind the need to adhere to time constraints. We were informed by the Minister of Veterans Affairs to the effect that the bill was cosmetic in nature and that its purpose was to bring merchant navy veterans under the umbrella of the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Pension Act and remove them from the several civilian acts. Against that background, our comments follow.

Inasmuch as, in accordance with the proceedings at second reading in the House of Commons, the purpose of the committee was to review the existing Bill C-61, we are quite prepared to state the view of the Canadian Merchant Navy Veterans Association that the omnibus bill is satisfactory insofar as it goes. We believe the committee is aware, as is the government, that we are seeking additional benefits from the omnibus bill, including a lump sum payment to merchant navy veterans as compensation for the veterans' rehabilitation benefits that were denied to them following their service in World War II.

It is the very strong view of the Canadian Merchant Navy Veterans Association, which I have the privilege to represent, that arrangements should be made for the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs to hear further submissions from other parties, concerning what might be described as supplementary benefits over and above those provided for in the omnibus bill. I am pleased to have your commitment on this, as indicated in your letter of February 12, 1999, which was directed to H.C. Chadderton.

We support with unqualified enthusiasm the position that is so well defined and articulated in the video presentation by Mr. H. Clifford Chadderton in his capacity as chairman of the National Council of Veterans Associations and consultant to the Canadian Merchant Navy Veterans Association. As a result of most diligent research, he has been able to highlight the specific reasons why veterans' benefits were denied to merchant seamen.

An abject lack of integrity on the part of the Government of Canada is well demonstrated by evidence of historical facts as follows: a written promise to the merchant seamen service that was considered to be of value at least equal to that of the uniformed armed forces; a pledge that the Government of Canada would support a viable mercantile marine following the end of World War II; a fully recognizable statement that the reason the government denied veterans' benefits to merchant seamen was that the seamen's service would be required to amend the peacetime mercantile marine as envisaged in the Canada Shipping Act; the other failure of the plan for a peacetime mercantile marine due to low wages; the gangster-led activities that destroyed the Canadian Seamen's Union, which was the only viable organization capable of negotiating decent wages for Canadian seamen and, by implication, the only organization that had clout to challenge the government's policy in respect of the denial of rehabilitation benefits to the seamen.

A two-page document prepared by Veterans Affairs Canada was circulated at the hearing of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs held on December 1, 1998. We now wish to bring to your attention some of the points outlined in that document on the grounds that, in our view, the sole objective of the author of the material was to defeat the proposal put forward by the Canadian Merchant Navy Veterans Association in regard to a lump sum grant in lieu of rehabilitation benefits that have been denied to merchant navy veterans. Simply put, it is our view that the information contained in the document reflects the thrust of decisions that are arbitrary, capricious, and not supported by substantial evidence. The questions to which your committee should seek answers are set out in exhibit A.

In broad perspective, this brief is being used as a vehicle that is designed to counter the general purpose of the document entitled “Merchant Navy: The Facts”—so-called—which was published by Veterans Affairs Canada. A copy of another missal of recent vintage authored by Bob Gardham, director of communication, Veterans Affairs Canada, is attached, and the record shows that it has appeared in newspapers across Canada. A copy of the answer to this letter written by Foster Greizic, Cliff Chadderton, and Muriel MacDonald is also attached.

• 1125

Mr. Gardham has stated that:

...unlike Armed Forces personnel facing demobilization, merchant navy veterans generally continued to earn wages and were thereby afforded the opportunity to plan orderly futures in the postwar boom economy.

Just the insinuation of this... and we are living proof that this is false. He goes on:

In addition, merchant navy veterans were provided with what was considered to be an equitable range of veterans benefits in recognition of their considerable contribution to the war effort.

Again, it's very misleading.

I would like to bring to the attention of the committee the fact that Mr. Gardham's writing constitutes yet another example of an attempt to defend an injustice that will not go away.

Face it, gentlemen, all of the political posturing will not change the fact that the government of post-war Canada erred when it supported the shipowners to the detriment of the democratic rights of the merchant seamen.

Since this may be our last opportunity to address this community, I would like to take the time to read a portion of a letter that I have just received from a former merchant seaman. I'll flip over it for just a second because I know we're running out of time.

Mr. Lorne G. Goudey was a bosun on the SS Colborne and was injured when his ship was bombed and strafed by the Japanese in the port of Penang in Malaysia in 1942.

I don't want to go down any further than that, but what is relevant is that Mr. Goudey was hospitalized on his return and was not able to return to sea. He had been a seaman on the Chomedy since 1935. He states here that he finally was forced to give up his home and go and live with his son-in-law in Oshawa, and during those lean years he managed to bring up a family, doing odd jobs. He further states that it was only in 1992 that he became eligible for a small pension of $85 per month for his injuries, but this was used as an offset along with the combined old age pension for both he and his wife, which amounted to $816 per month, leaving a small pension from the veterans independence program of $590 monthly, for a total maximum allowance for married couples that could not go over $1,491.

Quite frankly, when I hear the Legion making presentations, they know just as well as I do... It's frustrating. I will get into that after.

Let's go back again, but I think it's important to cover what did take place after the war. I wish to bring to your attention a few excerpts from the second report of the Canadian Maritime Commission. On page 51, the text of the report indicates that in 1948

It is not possible or advisable to force overseas buyers to ship in Canadian bottoms if they have not the dollars to pay in freights. It is therefore obvious that the Canadian flag fleet must be drastically reduced.

Further on in the report we read:

At this stage it is desirable to refer in some detail to the replacement plan which came into effect on February 25, 1948. After the war the government had sold the vessels formerly operated by Park Steamship Company under the terms of a standard sales agreement which came to be known as the “Park formula”. The vessels were sold at reasonable prices

—I think at a third of the cost of putting them together—

and on favourable terms to private Canadian operators pursuant to an express government policy of creating a merchant marine fleet under the Canadian flag. The agreement provides that the owners may not apply for permission to transfer vessels from Canadian registry without the consent of the Government.

By... 1948 a decline in the freight market appeared to be unavoidable. The ships were rapidly becoming uncompetitive with foreign vessels and more costly to operate. There was no market for their sale in Canada and if permission was not granted for sale abroad the Canadian flag fleet would remain static and eventually die of obsolescence. It seemed to us better to permit the sale of ships which could not be profitably operated under the Canadian flag rather than to have them laid up when they would only be a drain on the owners resources

—and this is most important, “on the owner's resources”—

and would not afford any employment to Canadian crews.

Please note that the concerns expressed were for the owners and not for the Canadian seamen who would be replaced by foreign crews at starvation wages.

• 1130

Under the plan, the owners were allowed to sell the vessels abroad provided they received permission from the commission. It was apparent that the government of the day was more concerned with the owners' profit margin, or their bottom line, than it was for the future of Canada's merchant seamen.

There are many more salient points that are documented in the report, but in the interest of time I will emphasize only a few of the highlights.

Following the recommendations of the merchant shipment policy, the government disposed of its wartime bulk fleet to private owners. The term “privatization” had not been coined in 1948. It should be noted that when the final settlement was made with respect to the operation and sale of these vessels that were built by the government during the last war and placed under the management of the crown-owned Park Steamship company, the government was able to recover approximately $200 million vis-à-vis the total expenditure of $270 million. In view of the fact that these vessels were in a sense tax built for the purpose of waging war, the amount recovered from their operation in this position represented a very substantial saving to the Canadian taxpayer. Not one dollar of these savings was spent to rehabilitate merchant seamen, who were dumped on the beach when the ships were sold. There was no severance package for the seamen, who were victims of political miscalculation and manipulation.

As the demise of the merchant fleet took place only three years following war's end, the government of the day could have extended to the seamen the same wage and benefits that were given to veterans of the armed forces. There was no political will to do so. The merchant seamen were virtually powerless when their Canadian Seamen's Union was destroyed by the manipulation of the government of the day, with the help of the Seafarers' International Union, led by an American gangster by the name of Hal Banks. The seamen had no political clout, and in the absence of any proper representation the results of the sorry mess are still very much in evidence.

Now 53 years later, after the fact, the government's shameful record is there for all to see. It is noted that 75% of former merchant seamen who are still in the land of the living are receiving benefits from a means-tested, war veterans allowance program that ranks far below the poverty line in this country. If this percentage is right, then it is an ignoble monument to the fact that merchant seamen did not share in Canada's prosperity and its growing economy after they were dumped ashore, untrained and unskilled, to be integrated into society. The only bloody reason why they are able to get into the burned-out pension is that they did not work in the private sector, where there were pension plans and other benefit plans. Most of them are getting into the burned-out pension because of that. So it proves that when the war was over, these people fell through the cracks and paid the price.

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 his day of discharge in World War II and the coming into force of the 1992 legislation for pensions, of approximately $47,000, and for war veterans allowance of around $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. I will not go through the supplementary benefits because I know the time is running and you've already read it.

But I will go down to the war disability pension of $78,290—this is our projection—and the war veterans allowance of $72,590. It is recommended that the government pay to all former merchant seamen who qualify for war disability pension and war veterans allowance a granting in lieu of loss due to failure to place merchant navy veterans on par with service in the armed forces, and thus grant entitlement to the same benefits and pensions of war allowance and supplementary benefits available to members of the armed forces 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 payment be devised for the length of service in the merchant navy and other related factors. We are talking here, and I know it's confusing to the committee... We started off by projecting $5,000 and up to $30,000. But I had a bloody lot of calls coming in, and we're looking at $15,000 and $30,000. Again, the reason for that is I was reminded that the last ship that was sunk with a Canadian crew was the Point Pleasant Park. For some of the nine casualties there, it was their first trip. From that same ship that was torpedoed, there were also first-trippers who spent two weeks in a lifeboat. It's very difficult.

• 1135

I do agree that there has to be time, and this is the only place in the brief where I can agree with the Legion. Maybe there should be a committee established to study how best to compensate merchant seamen. But we don't all have that much time, as I'll tell you afterwards, so I'm hoping we can do that as soon as possible.

As far the exhibit A is concerned, I could go through it, but you've already read it. I would like to have been able to emphasize it but, again, I realize time is not on our side. If I can just briefly jump through it, I'd ask you look at the second paragraph, on the question, “What does the proposed omnibus bill do to help Merchant Navy veterans?” It says, “The document states, `... benefits which will cost up to $8,000,000 a year”', as if the merchant navy were getting this. It's unbelievable.

The Chairman: Excuse me, Mr. Ferlatte. I want to be clear about something. As I said when I started this meeting, the last thing this committee wants or that I want as chair is to have any witnesses feel they didn't get a full opportunity to stress what they want to stress by the time they are through their presentation. I want to give you the assurance that we have this room for as long as we need it. There are members of the committee who have to go to other duties, but some will be able to stay. We have received your brief and have already read it—I would remind you of that—but I want you to be sure that the last thing I want to hear from any witnesses at any committee that I chair is that they didn't get a full opportunity to stress what they think is important. With that reminder, I'll let you go on.

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: Thank you very much. I appreciate your remarks, and I think you're being very fair. I will not take advantage of your personality by taking too long, I assure you.

Just continuing through the exhibit, it says, “How much does a Merchant Navy veteran receive from Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC)?” I think the response here is for maximum disability benefits. They go on to suggest that our people were able to get this.

I want to give you my personal experience. In 1948, when I came back, the personnel superintendent for International Paper happened to be the Legion president. I was hired as a part-time clerk. In those days, it was for six days a week. I was working four days for the Legion and two days for the mill, and I was on the IP payroll. I was bilingual, and I can recall going up to the north shore of the province of New Brunswick at the time, in the Acadian area. I can't remember one application that I ever filled for a merchant seaman. There were a lot of merchant seamen on the Acadian peninsula, because their parents brought them up on draggers and you name it. It was normal for them to evolve into the merchant navy.

In the three years that I worked practically full-time filling out applications for everybody else, for uniformed veterans, I cannot recall one application from a merchant seaman. The reason is that there was no bloody application for merchant seamen. I know myself that in 1949... I have here a couple of letters from our people. One was a former radio operator who applied to the Department of Transport, and he was told that he was equally as well qualified for at-sea as he was for ashore, and there was no training whatsoever. No matter how you cut it, it was only after 1992 that merchant seamen really got anything. I remember very well that for three bloody years prior to my going into the labour movement, I was working practically on a full-time basis, and no way was there any kind of application. I would have been the first one to tell them that they just didn't qualify.

Okay, let's go down to, “Did you know?” Again, there's $995.64 per year. Big deal. That's around $80 a month. I don't know. I was asking the department about this and they didn't know themselves what the hell that meant.

Still with exhibit A, “How many Merchant Navy veterans are receiving benefits from VAC?” Again, I can only say to you that the 75% figure is debatable. Nevertheless, if it is, I can turn that over on its head and say to you that the only reason why 75% of Merchant Navy veterans are receiving it—that is, they're receiving the burned-out pension—is that they did not get into the primary industry, in which there were pensions.

• 1140

The survivors' pensions are another one that's quite interesting. How many widows did we have as merchant seamen? Up until 1992, the widows didn't get anything. From 1992 on, we now know we have 134 widows who are presently receiving pensions. Prior to that, though, if a lady lost her husband, she got nothing from 1948 to 1992. There are no records of it, and it's a shame.

When the Legion was making... They're so worried that we are going to wind up getting something that other people are not getting. Just think, there were 12,000 of us who came back. All eventually married. They left a heck of a lot of widows back there, but nothing was done for them. So if we do get some kind of settlement, whatever it is the government can give us, let's not worry that we're going to get more than what other people got.

The other one I would like to address is, “Why won't the government pay retroactive compensation to Merchant Navy veterans?” Again, I state to you that it took us this long to get here. Yesterday, we had a hell of an argument. I'm trying to be as democratic as possible. It reminds me a little of the labour movement, when you have some guys who want to go on strike right away but others turn around and say to hold the line.

I want to say to you—and it's not a threat... how can I say this and be nice? It's pretty difficult. I used to always say, “This is not a threat, it's a promise to the industry,” but I'm not going to say that here.

We decided, that rather than have our convention in July, we're going to move it up to June. We feel that we now have—and I told them this in Vancouver—the day of vigil, on which we would stand up and ring a ship's bell while naming out the ships that went down. That's over. I think we are at the time now when we have to rise from our knees and not pray for miracles any longer.

I'm saying to you as a committee that I would like to see this wrapped up. Come to terms with us and get it over with, but please do so by June 1. The reason for that is that we're going to have a convention, I think around June 10. We're going to have around 400 merchant seaman who will come from across Canada.

For the time being, I know that, to a certain extent, these five people who were on the Hill were somewhat of an embarrassment. This is the reaction, but I know no committee or no chairman would ever admit that the hunger strike had anything to do with it. It's the same thing as when we used to strike the industry. They would say they would have done this anyway, that we didn't have to strike. It's not true. The fact of the matter is this: it was the only bloody way they could get your attention, and they're prepared to do that again. I'm hopeful that rather than having to have you people react to what is taking place, or what is going to take place, you will act and we will get it over with. You've had ample time. Hopefully, we can set up a committee to find a way to bring about an equitable way of having a meeting of minds on what would be the best way to compensate people on the basis of their exposure, on the basis of their seniority, taking everything into consideration.

I remember serving about ten years on an industrial safety council. I recall that when people are exposed to danger, their chances and the odds are terrific the longer they proceed to be exposed. So there's a tension, and there's everything else. What I'm basically saying to you is that it's true that people who were there for six years were exposed for a longer time. But the other side of the bloody coin is that from the time the ships left Halifax harbour, Saint John, or wherever, they were exposed immediately, and the odds were whether you were going to get it or not.

• 1145

I do not know how to put it. I hate like hell to turn around and say to the committee, look, we are going to have to take whatever action. I would like to turn around and suggest that if we don't come to grips with this by June 1, we will have to let nature take its course. I can tell you that there will be more than five people on that hill. I wish we didn't need to have this confrontation.

To the Government of Canada and yourselves as politicians, certainly they've already proved that they have the stamina to do it, so why turn around and push it any further? I think if anything has to be done, let's get it over with. Say either yes or no, and we will understand and we will take whatever action we can. Being a former altar boy, I remember being on my knees and praying for miracles. I don't believe in them anymore.

I thank you very much for your time, and I say to you that as far as the Legion's brief is concerned, their concerns, quite frankly... I was there in 1948. I have a 51-year pin here. Even during the 20 years I spent in Montreal, I still paid my dues to the Legion in New Brunswick. I can't get over the fact that these people have forgotten who their legionnaires were. It's mind-boggling. But anyway, what the hell, what's done is done. Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Mr. Ferlatte, thank you.

I have just a couple of comments from the chair before we go to our colleagues for questions. On your request for a June 1 resolution of this, I would hope that we will have this matter concluded in May, but I can give you no assurance. That would not be a sensible or honest thing for me to do. Today we have tried to give you gentlemen the fullest, fairest hearing possible. Every delegation that wishes to come before us has the same right to a full and fair hearing and has that assurance from me as chair. When we have heard all persons and delegations who wish to appear, then the committee will be seized with the issue and I would hope would make a final decision. My hope is that would be in May, but I certainly don't want to be held to that because I have no way to predict how this will unfold. There could be other witnesses yet come forward. But on the basis of those groups that we know wish to appear before this committee and give testimony, my hope would be that we would conclude the matter in May.

I repeat, I think for the third time at this committee, that I've chaired this committee since October 1998, and when we received the first written request of your group to appear, I told the clerk to schedule it. While I respect your right, which you fought for, to demonstrate and go on a hunger strike, which I hope is not necessary for health reasons, that did not assure your attendance at this committee, which I chair. No group that wrote to me as chair, simply by writing as Canadian citizens, has ever been refused their right to appear. I have to stress that, because I feel very strongly that's part of what you gentlemen so bravely fought for.

As to whatever actions you may feel are necessary if the June 1 deadline is not somehow met, again, you fought for your right as Canadian citizens to demonstrate and strike or to take whatever lawful actions you feel are necessary. Let's hope that a decision is taken before that point. We're going to do our utmost to do so.

I thank you very much for your presentations.

I go to a 10-minute round of questions now, beginning with Mr. Goldring from the Reform Party.

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

Thank you very much for your presentations, gentlemen.

I too would like to express my sincere belief that a hunger strike is not a way to achieve an end here. But I am very pleased to hear that the reports in the newspaper weren't correct and that there won't be one looming at the end of April. But now you're suggesting there may be one in the first part of June.

I'd like to think that rather than focusing our attention on hunger strikes, perhaps we could put serious attention to making thorough, concise presentations here so that we can truly take care of the issue at hand, and that's to find a way that compensation can be given so that we can erase this thing quite properly from our books. It has been far too long, and I think everybody is in agreement on that.

• 1150

The Chairman: Mr. Goldring, I'm sorry to interrupt you. Mrs. Wayne has a brief point of order, and then I'll come right back to you.

Mrs. Wayne.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Mr. Chairman, because of a very serious situation back home, I have to leave, and I'm sorry. I will be there to work for them. But I have to leave because they're flying me out.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mrs. Wayne. I think everyone here knows about your dedication to this issue. We wish you and your family the very best.

In a moment we'll go back to Mr. Goldring.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.)): Proceed, Mr. Goldring.

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

I'd like to make a reference to your list and probably comment on it and then ask you about it afterwards. In your listing you calculate the supplemental benefits total on page 7 of $30,590. It appears to me as though it's a list that is also used by War Amps. Is that correct?

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: Yes, it is.

Mr. Peter Goldring: So we'll be seeing these figures coming through again.

Am I correct in saying that this list is not meant to be an exact list? These numbers and figures here are guestimates to give an idea and to give emphasis to the fact that there were some such numbers to be applied to these. These items here form the basis of a feeling of inequality from the war until this date. The numbers are not meant to be an accurate portrayal.

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: We did not go to a firm of actuaries. I'm sure it can be done. But with the government's resources, I think they could certainly...

Mr. Peter Goldring: Some are grants and some are loans, and yet the total dollar value is plugged through for a bottom line. I'm saying that isn't normally a realistic way of coming to an end result. But you are certainly identifying specific items that have received short shrift from the merchant mariners over the years.

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: I'd like to answer you this way. I remember that sometimes when I was in negotiations I didn't have it exactly nailed down, but I'd always say I may not be on base, but I'm in the ballpark.

I want to say also, Mr. Goldring, that you are right. What appeared in the newspaper was that we were going to be back on the Hill in April. It took a little bit of arm-twisting on behalf of this chairman to buy time, because some of my people were not exactly in agreement. But last night in the wee hours we were able to buy time, and this is why...

Mr. Peter Goldring: I made the comment at an earlier meeting that even though it may appear that some of the leadership of the various groups may not be in total alliance of thought, the basic idea is to have common benefits for the men themselves, and the issue here is compensation for the merchant navy sailors themselves. So sometimes we have to look a little beyond the organization and structure of some of the various groups. Is that a fair assessment?

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: It's a fair assessment.

Mr. Peter Goldring: The numbers you do make mention of are $15,000 and $30,000 on page 8. Again, are those numbers similar to those that will be in the later brief coming through, or will there be different numbers in the War Amps' brief?

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: I do not know what the War Amps is going to propose. I can only say that I think there is a need to establish a committee. I have always said that if you open the door to negotiations, then the rest will flow.

• 1155

I think we should be able to put a committee together. I was hoping we could have suggested that Mr. Cliff Chadderton be the chairman. We would appoint people on a committee to meet with government, to sit down and look at the whole ball of wax, the whole situation, to see what would be a fair, equitable way of compensating people who had sailed for six years, and others who had sailed much longer and came out by 1948 or 1949-50, when their ships were being sold from under them. There are many factors that should be taken into consideration.

Mr. Peter Goldring: So this number here again is a guestimate, a suggestion of a way to get this group pointed in a direction to look at things.

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: Yes.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Because it makes mention here of so much... it gives a suggestion of so much a trip. So it's not simply mathematical division here. This is a suggestion to the group then.

I think the earlier comment should be clarified too. That was that there seem to be some comparables to other groups, whether they are the aboriginals or whether it's Ferry Command. Is it your feeling also that this is a completely separate issue, that it should be approached as a separate issue, that we can't confuse or talk about the two things at the same time—quite frankly, it would get very confusing—and that perhaps there may be some commonality in terminology, but that's about it?

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: I think in another time we possibly would have been very supportive of Ferry Command and other civilian-related groups, but at this point in time we're the ones who have been out there for so long. There have been 53 years of injustice, and I think if we have to be used to try to settle everybody else's problem, there'll be no bloody end to it.

I think if the Legion at the time... they knew that the merchant navy all these years... I always consider the Legion, because they say they take care of veterans; they're like bargaining agents, the same way we were in the union. But for 53 years they didn't do anything, so we had to do it ourselves.

All of a sudden now they're saying, let's add onto this; let's piggyback these other groups that obviously were not represented properly. Well, if they're not represented properly, I think it's because the bargaining agent, which was the Legion, did not do its job. It's too bad to have to say it that way, but from where I come from, normally unions are thrown out if they can't represent their members properly. And certainly, if the Ferry Command has not been able to get anything up until now, well, who is responsible? Certainly not the merchant navy.

During the war we carried enough orphans. We don't need them to piggyback us anymore.

The Chairman: This is the last question.

Mr. Peter Goldring: You made mention of the video presentation, and I might ask in general if it would not be beneficial for us to take a look at this video presentation before listening to all others. Does it not give some good background information that we should have to formulate in our mind what this whole concept is about?

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: I would strongly suggest you look at it, and the reason for it is that... Cliff Chadderton says it so nicely—the treachery of the government of the day. I think what we have to address is not what happened during the war; it is what happened after the war. What happened is that it was to the benefit of the shipowners to be given the right to be able to sell ships to the Greeks and you name it, foreign flag them on starvation wages and then take our Canadian seamen and dump them.

Mr. Peter Goldring: So why don't we have this...

The Chairman: If I might, from the chair, help you, Mr. Goldring, I'm of the mind that each member of the committee has had for some time their own personal copy of that video. I know I've watched it close to twice. So each member should have a copy.

• 1200

I believe, if the clerk can help me, when Mr. Chadderton makes his presentation... And we more or less tried to accommodate everyone as to when they wanted to come. I want to stress that as well. We felt we should hear you gentlemen the first day. We tried to accommodate Mr. Chadderton's time request... Is it correct that he wishes to show the video that day? If that sheds any light on the situation, we're accommodating his request, at which time we'll see it as a committee. But each member has had a copy for some time now.

Mr. Peter Goldring: It does, but understandably all committee members are not here at all times. So for the committee members who are not here at all times, I think it's valuable information for each and every committee member to partake in and see, because I think that can form their overall opinion of what to do in the resultant report.

Like you, I have seen it too. But I'm thinking there may be some members of the committee here who have not seen it, or maybe they'll be in on the next committee meeting and have not seen it.

The Chairman: Well, they will certainly have a chance when they're here with Mr. Chadderton. I would hope they're all as diligent as we all try to be in looking at some important information they've had for several weeks.

So thank you, Mr. Goldring.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin, please.

Mr. René Laurin: I would first like to ask for some information.

In his statement, Mr. Wilson said that his organization, the Canadian Merchant Navy Veterans Association represents some 1,600 merchant navy veterans.

How many merchant navy veterans do not belong to your association? The Legion claimed to represent some merchant seamen, and you say you represent 1,600. What are the proportions? Are some not represented?

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: It's very difficult to say.

Mr. René Laurin: Do some belong to neither association?

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: We don't know. When we started to review the situation, we thought that the government might have the Department find a method. Not too long ago, they wanted to know the number of World War I veterans still alive, and they found out. They made an effort to find out. If they wanted to know how many merchant navy veterans are still living, it wouldn't take them a long time.

We know that we have 1,600 members. There could easily be another 1,000 merchant seamen in Canada that we don't know nothing about.

Mr. René Laurin: Are some of them members of the Legion but not members of your association?

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: That could well be the case.

Mr. René Laurin: Or the opposite?

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: Or the opposite.

Mr. René Laurin: You could surely find out how many are members of the Legion, because the Legion has those statistics.

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: I wonder. No. I am sure, because I was Secretary Treasurer. I hold that position in my Legion branch, and I do not think that this information is in the computer.

Mr. René Laurin: They are not identified as Legion members from the merchant navy.

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: No, not at all.

Mr. René Laurin: They are identified as Legion members.

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: That's correct.

Mr. Wilson wanted to add something. I think that that might help you.

Mr. René Laurin: Great.

[English]

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: Okay, go ahead.

Capt Hill Wilson: Yes, the 1,600 figure is the number of people we have in our association. But just recently a publication of the Legion Magazine came out, and in their “Last Post”—I think that's what they call the column—the roll of honour, there are 21 merchant seamen mentioned, only five of whom belong to our association. So that's one thing.

I belong to a couple of other operations, or I did at least. One is the Company of Master Mariners of Canada, and we have quite a number of master mariners on Vancouver Island who are veteran seamen but don't belong to our association. It's the same thing with another group I belong to. Quite a number of seafaring people from World War II just don't belong to our organization. For what reason, I'm not sure.

[Translation]

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: Mr. Laurin, if the government decided to give you $20,000 and that was published in the newspapers, I'm sure that we'd find out how many merchant navy veterans there are.

• 1205

Mr. René Laurin: The chances are good.

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: They wouldn't want to miss that.

Mr. René Laurin: I have a question to ask out of sheer curiosity. You pointed out, as an aside, that 40% of the merchant seamen killed were from Quebec. How do you explain that?

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: When I was a seaman, in the 1930s and 1940s, there were many trips along the St. Lawrence River, and so there were many French Canadians. When war was declared, they all joined the merchant navy. It was just normal that they would carry on.

Mr. René Laurin: Because they were already there.

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: The barges carried the wood from Godbout to the mills in Quebec City. It was to be expected that—

Mr. René Laurin: So, they were the first recruits?

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: In Quebec, many young officers were former seamen who had sailed on the St. Lawrence River near Trois- Rivières and Quebec City.

Mr. René Laurin: In reference to statements by Vice-Admiral Murray, who praised the courage of seamen, Mr. Wilson said that they had a lot of trouble finding jobs because preference was given to armed forces veterans. When we say that they were given preference, does that mean that no merchant seamen could benefit? This suggests that preference was given to others, and some must have taken advantage of this. Were many able to take advantage of this?

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: Frankly, many, many of them could. I worked in the pulp and paper industry. A guy who had worked on the boats could get hired in a plant if he was an engineer and qualified, but there weren't many of those. In other words, preference was given to veterans, not to our members.

Secondly, all the guys who came back from the army got their full seniority. In addition, while the veterans were overseas, the pulp and paper companies paid the difference between the salary that they earned and the salary that they would have received if they had worked in the plant. The veterans received many benefits that we did not.

Mr. René Laurin: Does that mean that with equal skills, army veterans were given preference over merchant seamen?

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: Yes, and more. I recall that there were five ships in my area that transported newsprint from Canada to England during the war. Four of the five were sunk, but the seamen who had served in the convoy could not displace a veteran at the plant, even if they had worked for the same company.

Mr. René Laurin: I am returning to Mr. Ferlatte's brief. In your statement, you referred to the loss of retroactive allowances, which you evaluate at $78,000 for war disability pensions and $72,590 for war veterans' allowances. Which are you asking for? Are you asking for one, the other, or both?

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: We might as well be honest. In this kind of a situation, you take everything you can.

Mr. René Laurin: I understand, but—

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: To be absolutely frank, we took the figures that we had and made a projection. To tell you the truth, this is why I am saying that perhaps a committee should be created to look into all of this.

Mr. René Laurin: Excuse me, Mr. Ferlatte, but I think the question is important. This position is called a war disability pension. The criteria for disability and the criteria for veterans are two very different things.

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: Yes.

• 1210

Mr. René Laurin: If we were to give you a pension to treat you fairly in relation to army veterans and used the disability criteria as a basis, fewer people might benefit.

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: That's true, but merchant seamen are not like other veterans. A veteran may be crippled. In the merchant navy, when a ship sank, the seamen weren't crippled, they were killed. That was the end. There are merchant navy veterans who were crippled. At that time, workmen's compensation did not exist. When the boys came back, they got nothing, as occurred in the case that I mentioned of the accident victim.

Mr. Willis Marsolais, who was a prisoner of war, is here. As soon as the ship sunk, he was picked up and his pay stopped. In addition, he was injured. He was shot in the leg. You get $80 a month for your disability at present?

Mr. Willis Marsolais (Individual Presentation): I get $2.13.

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: He gets $2.13. That gives you an idea of the situation. He spent a lot of time in... He gets $2.13.

Mr. René Laurin: It costs more to issue the cheque than the amount of the payment.

Mr. Willis Marsolais: That's right.

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: The old age pension is $986, and they give you the difference. He receives $2.13 for having being crippled and shot. That's peanuts. It's outrageous.

Mr. René Laurin: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Merci. Thank you.

Mr. Wood for 10 minutes.

Mr. Bob Wood: I've had an opportunity to talk to Mr. Ferlatte and most of these people at length for the last six or seven months, so I think I have a basic idea of their views.

But you know, Mr. Ferlatte, this morning we heard a number of formulas for calculating compensation. Some have suggested a lump sum payment; some have suggested an ex gratia payment or annuity. Mr. Rycroft from the Legion has his views and the Legion's views on the compensation.

Your brief proposes a formula based primarily on time served, and I suspect in the coming days we're going to see all kinds of proposals as well.

You made one suggestion that kind of caught my attention and I just want to ask you a little more about it. You suggested this morning the formation of a committee to determine the formula of compensation. I think we all agree that this is going to be a complex and confusing issue, and I agree that setting out a formula will probably be extremely difficult.

I guess my question, Mr. Ferlatte, is this. Who would make up this committee, in your mind? You mentioned Mr. Chadderton as a possible chair, but who else? What other groups do you have in mind to put a committee like this together? Who would be part of it?

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: If one says a committee, how big do you need a committee to be to be efficient and get the thing done as fast as possible? I would suggest if we had five or six people on this committee, along with Veterans Affairs, and possibly we could have somebody from your department, from the people who are elected to be on that committee, we could look at a way of doing it fairly.

As I said, you have to take into consideration that the people who sailed from 1939 on were really exposed and that some of them continued to sail until the ships were pulled. They had a harder time being reintegrated into civilian life because of their age groups. I know a person who was over 35 years of age, as an example, would have a heck of a hard time to get into heavy industry. This is the reason we have so many people who are eligible for a burned-out pension.

• 1215

Mr. Bob Wood: Are you going to take the initiative on this if you decide to do this—

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: Yes.

Mr. Bob Wood: —or who's going to take the initiative?

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: Well, I'm suggesting that if the government would go along with establishing a committee, we would suggest that Cliff Chadderton be the chair and we would be prepared to nominate somebody from our group to sit on this committee. I'm not sure from the government point of view how you people would have representation from this committee itself along with people from Veterans Affairs.

Mr. Bob Wood: My own thought is that it probably should be non-political, if that's what you want to do.

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: Yes. We have no choice. What I'm trying to say is this. The simplest way—

Mr. Bob Wood: It was your idea.

Mr. Aurele Ferlatte: Yes, I realize that. The simplest way is to turn around and say we'll take $20,000 for everybody, or $30,000 or whatever, and that's it. We'll go home and thank you very much.

The Chairman: I think Mr. MacLean wants to add to this question.

Mr. Ossie MacLean: Yes. Mr. Wood and Mr. Ferlatte, you've got to keep one thing in mind. He'd give you a mandate. Well, I think it should be up to this committee or yourself to pick a committee, because if the mandate is not met by June 1, you know what's going to happen. We want a payout of back pay, or whatever you want to call it, because we don't want to see a lot of other men going to their graves without it. They all need the payout. There are so many people who have been calling me, it brings tears to my eyes, and it's bringing them right now.

There is going to be a payout. That is the main thing. I think it should be up to you people to pick a committee, or if you can see yourselves to let our president know, well, we're going to do it this way, we might accept that. We don't know. Let's get it done by June 1, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. MacLean.

Mr. Wood, further questions?

Mr. Bob Wood: No, I don't have anymore.

The Chairman: Okay. Mr. Clouthier? No.

Then to Mr. Earle from the NDP for ten minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Gordon Earle: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no further questions, but I would like to make a brief comment.

[English]

I want to thank the witnesses for their presentation. You've presented very well and have certainly clarified what you're looking for.

I want to make it known that certainly I, as a member of this committee, am supportive of the issue, and we'll certainly do our best to try to come to a reasonable resolution of this problem.

I do have a letter that came in from the Halifax-Dartmouth branch of your association, the Canadian Merchant Navy Veterans Association, and with that letter they included a letter of support from a Norwegian merchant navy veteran. So your issue is being looked at far and wide and being supported from various quarters. I'm not going to table this document because it's only in English, but I will give it to our clerk and request that he pass it on, once it's appropriately translated, to all members of the committee.

I just wanted to say we certainly support what you're doing, and hopefully we'll be able to meet the deadline or come to a conclusion that will be satisfactory to all parties. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Earle.

Are there further questions from the members of the committee? Seeing none, I want to thank all three of you gentlemen very much for attending today and helping us to further understand a very complex situation, which we will resolve as quickly as we fairly can. Thank you very much.

The committee is adjourned.