NDVA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA DÉFENSE NATIONALE ET DES ANCIENS COMBATTANTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 17, 1998

• 1531

[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 and indicate to all the members that following the question-and-answer session with the witnesses, there are one or two important routine matters of business to take care of. If members could try to stick around for that, it would be good.

Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Afterwards?

The Chairman: Yes. It's about what we discussed earlier, Mr. Proud, but I wanted to make sure all the members have had a notice from the clerk.

With that, let me welcome Mr. Bob Linden of the Hong Kong Veterans.

Mr. Linden, we're happy to hear your remarks. Would you like to introduce the gentleman with you?

Mr. Robert F. Linden (Individual Presentation): Mr. Des Loftus is one of my associates. He will assist me when I get into deep water.

The Chairman: Good. You're both welcome.

We have a good representation and I would encourage you leave a healthy amount of time for questions from the members, because often in those question sessions that we are able to get into some substantive issues too. If you'd like to make some remarks, you're welcome to.

Mr. Robert Linden: I'm not a Hong Kong veteran, nor a veteran of the special service Signals division. I was doing some research on the RCAF World War II veterans. These veterans served in every theatre of war. I came across an article in the Legion Magazine, in May 1996, about a small group of Signals, a special service Signals unit, that was seeking compensation for the Japanese campaign pay its members had not received. I have copies of this article, if you wish to have them.

As a historian, I was intrigued that some people who had served against the Japanese forces had not received their campaign pay. Upon further investigation, I found that not a single Canadian soldier who faced the Japanese in combat in World War II received one cent of Canada's Japanese campaign pay. Not one cent of the pay to which they were entitled was authorized for the Winnipeg Grenadiers or the Royal Rifles of Canada at Hong Kong or the special Signals unit at Darwin, Australia. This is a historical fact.

You have before you two documents. One is entitled Restitution of Japanese Campaign Pay to Hong Kong Veterans, dated January 1998, and the second is a redress of grievance to the Minister of National Defence.

• 1535

The first document, from January 1998, is a historical tract. It examines the archival material and evidence and draws and proposes some conclusions. Most history tracts are of this type.

With respect to the second document, which I'll continue to refer to, after a study of the historical tract, legal opinion was obtained and it was concluded that these veterans could submit a redress of grievance now.

The reason for that is that the documents that support the redress of grievance were sealed under secret files in the interests of national defence for 30 years and then not opened until a request was made.

If I may, I will summarize briefly what the components of the redress of grievance are. During the fall of 1945, staff officers at Canadian Army headquarters were concerned and aware of the anomaly that those who had faced the Japanese were not receiving Japanese campaign pay. They were not entitled to this because of the wording of Privy Council Order 3593, which is attachment number 3 to the redress, PC 3593.

The wording of this Privy Council order states in paragraph 1.(b) that:

It is now deemed expedient to provide additional pay for those members of the force who will serve with the Canadian Pacific Force in recognition of the extra hazards peculiar to that theatre of war

That statement excluded all the members of the Canadian army who were in the field facing the Japanese since that infamous day of Pearl Harbour, that is, the Grenadiers, the Rifles and others.

In January 1946, the Director of Organization in the Canadian Army proposed an amendment to the financial regulations and instructions. This proposal is paragraph 5 of attachment 1. There was considerable concern, as you can see when you read the documentation; staff officers, junior and senior, were concerned that these veterans who had faced the Japanese were not receiving Japanese campaign pay.

And so, in paragraph 5, the Director of Organization requested general staff concurrence in an amendment to the financial regulations and instructions which would have the effect of granting Canadian Army Pacific Force rates to other than Canadian Army Pacific Force personnel while serving within the territorial boundaries of Australia, which took care of the special Signals group, in the Pacific Ocean area, excluding Canada and the United States and in many of His Majesty's ships and carriers on the terms and conditions applicable to the personnel of the RCAF. This covered about nine Dental Corps officers, who were also not covered by PC 3593.

• 1540

It further goes on to say that the extra pay should be payable to army personnel made prisoners of war in the Far East, either prior to or subsequent to the date of this order, i.e., this would include the Hong Kong veterans force.

The chief of staff consulted with the deputy minister and minute 2 of attachment 4 reads:

CGS has spoken with the D.M. (Deputy Minister) and it has been agreed that the proposed extension of Japanese Campaign Pay will not be proceeded with.

There are no documents to support this statement that we can find in the files, but let us look at the actions they would have had to take had they supported the proposal. First of all, in order to amend the financial regulations and instructions, a new Privy Council order would have to be written. The deputy minister upon whose advice the Chief of General Staff decided not to proceed with the pay would be the person that would have to go back to the committee of the Privy Council, admit to the previous error and ask for a new Privy Council order.

Secondly, getting on to that January, how many veterans have returned, are in hospitals or back with their families, and spread across the country? There's no record of where they are. If this amendment had gone through, they would have had to be located, their pay records would have had to be updated, their war service credits would have had to be changed— in everything that would happen. Now as for the complexity of this, a very conservative estimate is that it would take at least half a day. You have to find the person, change the thing and all the rest of it. That's a very conservative estimate. So the deputy minister was also faced with five man-years of labour in accounting and clerical. So there are two good reasons why he advised the Chief of General Staff not to proceed with this matter.

There the matter lay buried. Normally—I have a little thing in my wallet at home that says “thank you for 32 years of service”, signed by Pierre Elliott Trudeau, so I've been through these things before—when there's a shortcoming or a shortfall on a Privy Council order it's straightened out by administrative procedures. Administrative procedures make sure that the Privy Council order does cover all of the intent of cabinet. But here, any step toward change was buried along with all the other secret files in 1946. So we are now looking toward changing this Privy Council order.

In paragraph 1 of attachment 1, it states in the last sentence:

This new rate of pay was devised as an inducement to secure an adequate number of volunteers.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

In attachment 2, the minister stated, quite clearly, under “Japanese Campaign Pay”, on page 2, in the fourth paragraph down, under section (b), that the Japanese campaign pay “would provide recognition of the extra hazards peculiar to that area”.

• 1545

Furthermore, in faulty Privy Council Order 3953, this is repeated again, in paragraph 1(b), where it states again,

pay for those members of the force who will serve in the Canadian Pacific Force in recognition of the extra hazards peculiar to that theatre of war

Mind you, in the original submission by the minister to the Privy Council, he stated that it would encourage morale and provide encouragement to personnel desirous of serving in the Pacific area. But those are just extras.

It was the extra hazards peculiar to that area, and those extra hazards didn't start in June of that year. They started on November 7, 1941, and anybody who served in that theatre was exposed to those extra hazards and was entitled to Japanese campaign pay, without doubt.

Furthermore, the Prime Minister, when he brought up the matter in the House on April 4, 1945, said,

The men to make up whatever military force is to be employed against Japan will be chosen from those who elect to serve in the Pacific theatre.

He didn't say “re-elect”. He said “elect.” By the time it got into the bureaucracy, it become “re-volunteer.” The Prime Minister also said, in the paragraph following those words, that those who elected to serve would be given 30 days' leave prior to posting back to Canada.

It turns out that an airman from my service volunteered to serve in the Pacific. He got to the head of the line, went home, had his 30 days' leave and then said, “I'm not going.” So the air member for personnel of the Royal Canadian Air Force wrote to the Judge Advocate General and said, “Here we have this man. He has volunteered and now he's not volunteering. What can we do?”

• 1550

And the Judge Advocate General wrote, on page 1 of the memorandum to A.M.P. marked “SECRET”, HQS.85-1-1 (JAG), dated July 4, 1945, in paragraph 5, in reviewing the statutes, that:

It follows therefore that, as a matter of law (as opposed to policy), no further undertaking or declaration is necessary for the purpose of making them liable to serve on active service in the Pacific Theatre.

Those men had all elected when they enlisted. They had elected.

Finally, why a redress of grievance? These veterans are entitled to redress of grievance, and in the original article that you have, the Legion article, at the bottom of the page, it says: “The department studied this request twice. It was found that the group is not entitled to back pay.”

This decision is based upon faulty Privy Council Order 3593.

With a redress, the minister may now review the shameful anomaly in its full perspective and then make the necessary representation to cabinet.

Finally, what is the period of eligibility? It depends on the date you were dispatched to the Pacific theatre from Canada or the arrival in the Pacific theatre from other other theatres in operation, and that's clearly spelled out in the naval Privy Council order which follows the army one.

I think that summarizes it as much as I can, gentlemen.

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

I'm sure there will be questions. We have a standard procedure we follow at Commons committees, and we'll go now to the first party to ask questions, the Reform Party, for ten minutes.

Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Linden. You mentioned briefly what your interest is here. Are you representing any group or are you doing this on your own? Could you explain exactly what your interest is in following through on this?

Mr. Robert Linden: I'm a historian. I used to be an engineer before I was a historian, but I'm a historian now. It shocks me that this stain on our military honour should be here. We should erase it.

Mr. Peter Goldring: You mentioned in earlier conversations that there was campaign pay given to certain members of the Dental Corps, for example. Are you aware of others it was given to? Does this, in your mind, establish that this pay was given to “some”? Could you explain what you were referring to with the Dental Corps?

Mr. Robert Linden: Yes. The original Privy Council order was applicable only to the Canadian Army Pacific Force. The effective date, in the draft order, is June 1, 1945. That's the order to amend the financial regulations and instructions. For the Canadian Army Pacific Force it was June 1, 1945.

• 1555

Mr. Peter Goldring: So does that, in your mind, establish that there were payments made under that order and that their intentions were to carry that through to make it applicable to all members of the Armed Forces in the Pacific theatre?

Mr. Robert Linden: No, it only applied to the 6th Division of the Canadian Army Pacific Force. It did not apply to any other Canadian Army personnel. However, at a later time, it was discovered that there were nine Dental Corps officers aboard the various Canadian cruisers, the Prince Robert, the Uganda and the Ontario, who were attached to the Pacific battle fleet. They arrived out there in about March and their date was from March; in other words, this establishes the date on which the Japanese campaign pay should start—when you arrived in the theatre.

Mr. Peter Goldring: If that established that there was a campaign pay that was started, the reason given for it was that it was an inducement to secure an adequate number of volunteers. Is that correct?

Mr. Robert Linden: No, it's not correct. The reason for it was for the extra hazards in the Pacific theatre.

Mr. Peter Goldring: For the extra hazards.

Is the fact it's been sealed for over 30 years an effort to keep that campaign pay record from the members' eyes, members who may very well have wanted to follow up on it to see why that campaign pay wasn't given to them? Is that the normal reason for sealing the records for 30 years?

Mr. Robert Linden: No. The normal reason for sealing is that it happens to be secret records. All secret files, in the interest of national defence, were sealed for 30 years. It's just a fact that this particular item happened to be in those secret files.

A voice: That's why they buried them.

Mr. Peter Goldring: This has come up before. Are you aware of other veterans' groups that are in favour of what you're doing, that agree with what you're doing? Can you comment on other veterans' groups? This is not new information, is it? Have these questions been asked before? And what has been the problem with the answers?

Mr. Robert Linden: The problems have come up from time to time, but this is the first time they've been put forward in the form of redress of grievance. The knowledge is general, yes. It's not the first time the department is aware of these papers.

Mr. Peter Goldring: So you feel the only difference is that it's never before been brought forward as a redress of grievance.

Mr. Robert Linden: It's been brought forward, and the Judge Advocate General stated that, based upon PC 3593, the specialist wireless group was not entitled to Japanese campaign pay. This faulty PC 3593— that's what he based it upon.

I might add a point of clarification for those here who are not well aware of the military justice system. This is not the Judge Advocate General sitting in judgment. The Judge Advocate General sits in judgment only on courts martial and courts of inquiry. At all other times, he is a legal adviser. This is a legal opinion only.

Mr. Peter Goldring: So if you could bottom-line what your direction is on this, what you would like to see done to conclude this concern and what are the necessary steps that should be taken?

Mr. Robert Linden: Either singularly or collectively, a redress of grievance should be made to the Minister of National Defence, and the Minister of National Defence would reply to that redress.

Mr. Peter Goldring: And who would make this redress of grievance?

Mr. Robert Linden: It's possible that you, I believe—I'm not a lawyer—as members of the House who have constituents who were veterans in the Pacific area, could make this redress on their behalf. I'm not sure what the legal interpretation is. If this is not possible, there are certainly, even in this room right now, members of the Special Wireless Group who could make that redress, by the way.

• 1600

But personally, I think it would be better if we just took it as a total package. In that sense, the minister would then see what costs are involved. If you state, “This is the number of men entitled to it, this is the period of entitlement, this is what 50¢ a day is worth in today's dollars, and this is the cost to the crown to do this—” If you take it as a group, then this can be done and handled.

Mr. Peter Goldring: And how many people does this affect?

Mr. Robert Linden: Exactly 1,973 officers and soldiers of the Winnipeg Grenadiers and the Royal Rifles of Canada and 342 members of the No. 1 Special Wireless Group, Royal Canadian Corps Signals. Because as a pay item, for those who have passed on, this is a matter of their estate.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Would this also apply to any members of the air force? You're mentioning here the seamen's group and the 1,973 from— The air force was connected with various groups throughout the Pacific. Would that be applicable to any of them too?

Mr. Robert Linden: The Privy Council order was never raised for the Royal Canadian Air Force.

Mr. Peter Goldring: All right. Thank you.

The Chairman: There are couple of minutes left, Mr. Hart.

Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Linden. It's nice to have you here so shortly after Remembrance Day, when all Canadians were able to remember the fine work of yourself and others.

I have a couple of questions. We've talked a couple of times about your mention of extra hazards or special hazards. Can you explain what exactly those special hazards were? Were they environmental hazards or were they hazards specific to the Pacific campaign? Were they different hazards than those facing people in war in Europe? What exactly were the hazards?

Mr. Robert Linden: I don't think I could really determine what those special hazards were. The Minister of National Defence at the time stated that there were special hazards.

However, fighting in the jungle is a pretty rough thing to do. I have a fine friend who was a colonel in the Australian army, and they would sit in the jungle with their arms locked so they wouldn't fall asleep, back to back, because of the infiltration of the Japanese soldiers. It's a different type of warfare.

Also, the enemy did not subscribe to the Geneva Convention in the way they treated their prisoners. It's on record that they murdered Australian airmen and they bayoneted Canadian soldiers who were helpless. That was hazardous.

Mr. Jim Hart: I think it's important that the question of those hazards be answered. I was looking through the documentation, and in attachment 1, which you referred to, in paragraph 9, they talk about the unfairness of applying this, because with respect to the war in Europe, I suppose one could also argue that the people who fought in Europe also had special conditions and hazards unique to their campaigns, so why wouldn't they receive an extra compensation for their battles?

Mr. Robert Linden: I served in Italy. I was with 236 Wing, Heavy Bomber Wing of 205 Group. I received “6 and 6”, six shillings and sixpence per day, as the Mediterranean allowance for an officer. That's equivalent to something in excess of $1.50 a day. So in other areas there were allowances. There were all kinds of allowances. There was an India allowance, there was a Mediterranean allowance, there was headquarters pay, there was instructor's pay— there were all kinds of things.

If the minister said that, “For this reason, I can do—”

[Inaudible—Editor]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Linden.

Mr. Earle, do you have questions at this point? If you do, go ahead.

Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): I do have a question. I just want to make sure I understand the situation, because this is my first time coming abreast of it and I just want to make sure I understand exactly what the issue is.

• 1605

If I understand it correctly, the Privy Council order originally made it so that the pay supplement was to apply from 1945 onward, but then it seems that there is some different treatment, that the personnel of the Canadian warships were eligible since 1941, from the date they entered the theatre of war in the Far East. If I'm not mistaken, it appears that they got the special pay from 1941 onward, whereas the people on whose behalf you're speaking only got it from 1945 onward. Is the issue you're looking at that differential between 1941 and 1945 for those veterans who had served in Hong Kong? Is that the issue in a nutshell?

Mr. Robert Linden: No, sir, that is not the issue. The point that I tried to make was that the army, that is, the Canadian Army Pacific Force, was excluded from the Hong Kong veterans' campaign pay. The effective date was June 1, 1945, and the Privy Council order covering the navy was effective January 1, 1945, not June 1, 1945. Of course, the reason is that there were Canadian cruisers serving with the British battle fleet in the Pacific prior to the June date. Therefore, the navy set its date as June.

Furthermore, the navy's is quite interesting. It says no period:

Provided that no payment shall be made for periods served in Canada, Japanese Campaign Pay shall be paid to an Officer or Rating effective on and from:

(a) Date of departure from Canada in a Ship allocated for operational duty outside Canada in the Pacific Theatre.

(b) Date of departure from Canada for service in a Ship or Shore Establishment outside Canada in the Pacific Theatre.

(c) In the case of Ships commissioning outside Canada for service outside Canada in the Pacific Theatre, date of commissioning of the Ship. xxx

In other words, what they're saying is that the entitlement starts when you arrive, and the two changes in dates make it effective for Japanese campaign pay.

Mr. Gordon Earle: So you're not going back beyond 1945?

Mr. Robert Linden: It goes back to when they arrived. It's applicable in my mind because of the change in date, because the Dental Corps officers have a different date from the other soldiers; it applies when they arrived in the theatre. The Winnipeg Grenadiers and the Royal Rifles were there on December 8, 1945—their time—which was the outbreak of the war. It's when you got there— What I am addressing in that point is that the redress has to look into that matter, and the answer to the redress should address it.

The Chairman: All right. Under the rules, we now go to the Liberal side and then back to Ms. Wayne, who will be next for the Conservatives.

Mr. Richardson and Mr. Proud, for ten minutes.

Mr. Richardson.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much, Mr. Linden, for coming here to support of this proposal. This is not the first time we've seen you in action. It's a worthy cause.

Mr. Robert Linden: Thank you.

Mr. John Richardson: I would like to go to the memorandum dated January, 1946. It's a bit blurred and could be either January 16 or January 18. DCGS developed a memorandum and some kind of logic that may have had very a serious effect on the decision.

Mr. Robert Linden: That's attachment 1?

Mr. John Richardson: Yes. yes.

Mr. Robert Linden: Thank you.

Mr. John Richardson: I don't want to go through all of it, but the case is set out that it was intended for those serving in the Pacific area, excluding Canada and the United States—I think if we take that as a given it's a good point to start from—“in any of His Majesty's ships or carriers under the terms and conditions applicable to the personnel of the RCN”, so it covered the people on sea and on land in a general description.

• 1610

Those who were serving on land in the Pacific region, other than the United States and Canada, would by definition be eligible. I think that's a prima facie statement. These people would be eligible, but I don't know if they were in granting the Canadian Armed Forces Pacific pay for the Pacific force— The argument flows from this area where he defines who will be eligible:

this extra pay should be made payable to Army personnel made prisoners of war in the Far East either prior or subsequent to the date of this order.

And this would include the Hong Kong force.

Mr. Robert Linden: Right.

Mr. John Richardson: Again, that's pretty hard evidence of some support for something being owed to these people.

Mr. Robert Linden: Yes, there's very much an intent.

Mr. John Richardson: Now here is where the Deputy Chief of General Staff makes some suggestions, when he says, “I suggest that you may wish to discuss with military members the advisability of proceeding with this order.”

We see the first hesitation here in his analysis. I think that's important. After building the case, he's probably at the top rung and it's looking pretty high up and it's a long way from the ground. He says,

Only a very small proportion of the Canadian Army Pacific Force have ever received any payment under the new rates as only a comparatively small number proceeded out of Canada,

I don't think the numbers were the rationale behind paying people, first of all. That's not a factor. The factor was that they were serving there in conditions that were different from those in Europe, because of the different kinds of health hazards, I think, that would be attributed, such as malaria being a greater risk if you were serving on land in that area, along with other kinds of diseases of the Pacific area.

I just want to go along step by step because the logic is hard to follow. And it's written after the war, so it's behind that— I know the resilience of veterans when they feel they've been had and I think those who would ever have handled this memorandum would have thought after they got by the section I read out in paragraph 5 that they were entitled by the description of the area in which they served and the moneys that would be available.

All I want to say now is that it seems to be questionable in item 10, where he starts to really show some wavering in his appreciation. And it's an administrative appreciation, not an operational appreciation, because there wasn't money available for inducement to go to the Pacific theatre. It was because of the environment, not because of the threat. He states:

These points make it questionable as to whether we are justified in agreeing now to an expansion of the application of CAPF rates.

We can see now that having built up a case, he's trying to tear that case down. It's true that some of the Canadian Army Pacific Force who reached the United States—some 1,500—did receive CAPF rates. And CAPF rates were exclusively not to be paid for those in Canada and the United States, if I go back to paragraph 5.

I don't know the name of the brigadier-general, but—

• 1615

Mr. Robert Linden: L.M. Chesley is his name. It's at the bottom of page 1.

Mr. John Richardson: Thank you. He says,

The fact that the intention to despatch the CAPF for intensive operational employment was not carried out rather tends to make the broadening of the application of CAPF pay a dead issue.

Dead— how about all those people who died at Hong Kong? How about the Signals groups that were there as well and suffered through this whole period?

I can't think that we should be measuring this in terms of a 10,000-person force, which it probably would have been if they'd gone through with the buildup. But for those who were there through that time and who, under the definition, would have been eligible, it's in my mind that they should be paid—that's just my own opinion—because the description for eligibility was defined, and then, they've also accepted the fact that the 1,500 Canadians who were in the United States received the pay, and now they're stating these people who died at Hong Kong or were prisoners of the war for the rest of the war, should be paid— I just leave it there.

I'd like to hear your comments of my assessment of that memorandum from the Deputy Chief of General Staff, who was then suggesting to deny the payment to those people.

Mr. Robert Linden: He took the advice of the deputy minister. The deputy minister said, “Don't proceed.” It's that simple—an administrative glitch.

Mr. John Richardson: Yes.

Mr. Robert Linden: Had these files not been buried, sealed, this matter would have come to light then and there. And then and there those veterans would have been able to have redress of grievance, because it is a grievance.

Mr. John Richardson: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Proud, you have a couple of minutes.

Mr. George Proud: Yes, I just wanted some clarification. This has been an ongoing subject and you people know this better than anybody since the end of the war.

The first question I'd like to ask is about Mr. Graham's committee on foreign affairs and international trade. Their recommendation, as I understood it at the time, was that the prisoners of war were seeking redress for the amount of pay they got as slave labourers, for the amount of pay that they should have got as labourers. That was one issue that had to be addressed and that presumably should have been addressed by the Japanese government prior to a settlement that was made in 1952 or something.

The other thing that you're talking about today is this special rate of pay that a good many of these people didn't get from the Canadian government. Is my understanding correct?

Mr. Robert Linden: None of them got it.

Mr. George Proud: None of them?

Mr. Robert Linden: Not a single member of the Canadian Army who was in the Pacific theatre—

Mr. George Proud: —got the special rate of pay.

Mr. Robert Linden: With the exception of the nine Dental Corps officers serving on board the cruisers, Prince Robert, Ontario and Uganda.

Mr. George Proud: And it's because of these records having been kept secret or kept undercover for 30 years, or whatever the case may be, that they haven't had the chance to redress this prior to that in the fifties or in the forties. They couldn't do this?

Mr. Robert Linden: That is correct.

Mr. George Proud: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Proud.

Mrs. Wayne for 10 minutes and then we'll have time for a second round if the members wish.

Mrs. Wayne.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Thank you very much, Mr. O'Brien.

I want to thank Mr. Linden for his presentation today, and I think you can see that you have a great deal of support around this table, Mr. Linden.

My first question to you is, how many Hong Kong vets do we have who are still living today?

• 1620

Mr. Robert Linden: I don't know.

The thing is, if they're not alive, this pay entitlement goes into their estate. If their widows are alive, they will receive it. It their widows are not alive, their children will receive it, and their children are as much entitled to it, having lost a father early.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: So the approach here is not for those who are still living, but it will go to the estate of that veteran who was over there, the Hong Kong vet who is not living today. Is that correct, sir?

Mr. Robert Linden: No, it will go to those who are alive.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes.

Mr. Robert Linden: It will go to the widows of those who have passed on.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes, the widows or the children.

Mr. Robert Linden: And if the mothers have passed on, it will go to their children.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Mr. Linden, why do you think the government has not supported this claim for compensation and settled this issue at this point in time? What reason do you think they have?

Mr. Robert Linden: Because their legal advice from the Judge Advocate General's office is back to this faulty Privy Council order. Had that been written properly in the first place, if it had said, “Personnel of the Canadian Army serving in the Pacific theatre are entitled to Japanese campaign pay”—

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I find it hard to believe, in view of all of the information and documentation that is here, and seeing that a chief of staff erred and it showed—and you have it here in your presentation—that we have not taken the proper steps to correct this injustice.

I noted that on the Department of Veterans Affairs web site, they have a brief history of the Canadian contribution to the Allied efforts in Asia. There's just a very brief history of it. They describe how we sent into the area troops that were not fully trained for battle, but they do not mention at all any of the atrocities that were suffered by those prisoners of war. Could you give us your view as to what these men went through there, the atrocities they suffered?

Mr. Robert Linden: I can talk about one that I know of personally. Oz Luce was a radar technician—that's my field—who was at Singapore. He got out of Singapore and into the Dutch East Indies, which is Indonesia now, and was captured there. Oz is a big man; he weighed then about 210 pounds.

They were digging the caves for the Japanese infantrymen to hole up in. Fortunately, as Oz says, an atom bomb was dropped and they didn't have to carry out their final order. The final order, which they found afterward, was that after the Canadian prisoners of war had made these caves and timbered them up for the Japanese soldiers to defend themselves against the coming army, they were to be shot.

That's the only story I know. There are many, many stories. That's a personal story I know.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I know that Cliff Chadderton and the War Amps have been arguing a claim of compensation for the Hong Kong vets and their families since 1987. I also know, and you have mentioned, that the Japanese government stonewalled this claim, and the Human Rights Commission has refused to proceed without the support of the Canadian government. And in our research, we noted that the foreign affairs committee has for the second time recommended unanimously that compensation be awarded.

We have support. We have support from the foreign affairs committee, and I can see we have support on the government side as well as on our own side. In 1997 the DVA had over $46 million in lapsed funds. That's according to the Auditor General's report, so we know it is accurate.

• 1625

So I would think it is time now for this committee to take a very serious, positive look at meeting the needs of these people and their request. I really do, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Wayne.

Colleagues, we're ready for a second round, if there are more questions. We'll start with the Reform Party, for five minutes this time.

Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you. I'd like to introduce a motion before I begin, though, please, and I'll read the motion:

That the Minister of Veterans Affairs be requested to appear before the committee at the earliest opportunity, but not later than December 2, to address part III of the estimates and the performance reviews of the department for the fiscal year 1998-99.

I'd like to make that motion, please.

The Chairman: Does this relate to the witness, though, and what we're doing here?

Mr. Peter Goldring: It's related to veterans affairs.

The Chairman: Could we not conclude with that?

Mr. John Richardson: We have something on the table.

The Chairman: We have a witness before us who we want to continue to question. I'll give you an opportunity later to raise it.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you.

Mr. Linden, you're to be congratulated for your work on this. As my colleague stated earlier, there have been concerns with the Hong Kong veterans on other issues too.

I find it deplorable. I received this file last year in my critic area of the Hong Kong war veterans. Having known a Hong Kong war veteran and worked with him in my period in the military in the early 1960s, the file was not new. I knew the file, because of the stories he told me. To find that they're still outstanding issues for these men 50 years later I find is unbelievable. It really is.

With that in mind, I'm going to talk about the Hong Kong veterans for a second, because they had issues of concern that were supposedly addressed by our Canadian government in 1952, but we learned subsequently that in 1955, there were conspiracies between the Canadian government and the Government of England to keep from them information about their capability for claims against Japan.

I'm seeing here on the table another issue. It's clear that this pay had been approved for these men, the army and navy men in Hong Kong. It had been approved, but a deputy minister stopped the process. Am I to understand that his process of stopping it wasn't correctly done? Is that what I'm to understand, and this redress is to correct a situation that should not have been stopped?

Mr. Robert Linden: Yes.

Mr. Peter Goldring: That's it, in a nutshell. Here again, I don't understand how things work in that department, but if he stops a process like that and the files are sealed, is that process necessarily a secret process that should be sealed for 30 years? Is that the type of decision that should be secret? We're talking about pay.

Mr. Robert Linden: I referred to you the memorandum from the Judge Advocate General, where he said:

It follows therefore that, as a matter of law (as opposed to policy), no further undertaking or declaration is necessary for the purpose of making them liable to serve on active service in the Pacific Theatre.

There's nothing in that document, sir, that is secret. It's all of common law. It's a legal opinion on common law. Yet his decision would have been very embarrassing, because all this hoopla about re-volunteering had gone out the window. So to save his fellow members and so on, he put a “secret” stamp on it. It's right there at the top.

Mr. Peter Goldring: So what you're saying is that the labelling of this communication “secret” really wasn't because of its secret nature; it was to prevent embarrassment to the military themselves.

• 1630

For what reason would we label a document secret?

Mr. Robert Linden: In this particular document?

Mr. Peter Goldring: Yes.

Mr. Robert Linden: I believe that by labelling it secret, it wasn't going to get out as general knowledge that the re-volunteering process was a farce.

Mr. Peter Goldring: So that would have been done with the knowledge that it would bury the information?

Mr. Robert Linden: Yes.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Has this been a problem with groups in the past, that access to information was restricted to them to find this out? You're a historian. You're finding this information out now. What method would a person have been able to use to determine this information in the past?

Mr. Robert Linden: None.

Mr. Peter Goldring: When did this become available to be determined?

Mr. Robert Linden: After about 33 years. I believe that was the period after which the classified National Defence files from World War II were released to the public.

Also, I would remind you, sir, that it's not a general release of all of these files. As a historian, I go to the archives, and I can go through the list of files and say, “I would like to see that file.” If tomorrow I'm the first one to look at that file since it was sealed in 1945, that's the first time it's released. And before it's released, it is looked at to determine whether it's sensitive information.

Mr. Peter Goldring: When you're going to these files, have you any way of determining whether they've been released to others before you?

Mr. Robert Linden: No. Maybe the archivists do, but I don't.

Mr. Peter Goldring: All right. So then to repeat what I asked before, your solution to this is to present a redress of grievance to the Minister of National Defence, and you had mentioned it's by one of the groups. Will one of the groups be prepared to do this redress of grievance? Who will specifically be putting forth this redress of grievance, and is that the best way to attend to it?

Mr. Robert Linden: Normally a redress of grievance— It says:

(1) If an officer thinks himself wronged in any manner by another officer, he may complain to his commanding officer. (—)

(3) If the commanding officer has not redressed a complaint— within four days of its receipt by him, the complaining officer may submit his complaint in writing direct to the air or other officer commanding.

(4) If the complaining officer does not receive from the air or other officer commanding the redress to which he considers himself entitled, he may complain in writing direct to the Chief of the Air Staff who, if so required by the complaining officer, shall make a report to the Minister. The Minister shall, if so required by the complaining officer, refer the matter to the Governor in Council. xxx

That is the order of redress of grievance. It's from the King's Regulations for the RCAF in 1943, and I believe there's a parallel one in the Canadian Army.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Because we have some new members to the committee, I'll just recall for everybody that for the second round, this committee previously agreed to go to the opposition side, the government side, and so on, working our way down the opposition members who wish to ask questions.

I'll turn now to the government side for five minutes.

Mr. Pratt.

Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The question I have, Mr. Linden, is do you know how much the bill would be for this retroactive compensation?

Mr. Robert Linden: In the original brief, I have a calculation in table 1 of the redress of grievance.

With regard to the Hong Kong veterans—and this is based upon their period of time and not applicable to the special Signals force—for officers of the rank of major and above, $21,000; for captains, $19,000; for lieutenants, $16,000; and it goes down to $6,000 for a private soldier.

The Chairman: Excuse me, Mr. Linden. If I understood the question—

Are you looking for a grand total, Mr. Pratt?

Mr. David Pratt: Well, actually, if he could separate it out from the Hong Kong veterans—

• 1635

Mr. Robert Linden: The Hong Kong veterans are the major portion, because the Signal corps veterans had, I think, 309 days, as against the three or four years of the Hong Kong veterans.

I had asked for the distribution by rank of the Hong Kong force, which I had hoped to be able to give to you today. Unfortunately it just didn't come up in time. However, if the committee wishes me to provide that information, I can do so within two or three days.

The Chairman: It might be very helpful if you could do that without too much trouble to you.

Mr. Robert Linden: Right to your office, sir?

The Chairman: That would be helpful, yes, and then we'll distribute it from there. Thank you.

Mr. Robert Linden: Okay, I'll come up with a number. I think it's about 5%.

The Chairman: It would be great if you could forward it to the clerk, actually, and he'll distribute it to the members.

Mr. Robert Linden: I will do that.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Pratt, did you have some other questions?

Mr. David Pratt: I think the question did come up as to how many surviving Hong Kong vets there are.

Mr. Peter Goldring: There are 351.

Mr. David Pratt: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Robert Linden: And this is applicable not only to the surviving Hong Kong vets but to their estates, so you take the total number.

The Chairman: Yes, you've made very clear a couple of times that we're talking about total compensation.

Mr. Robert Linden: Right, thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Laurin, do you have any questions?

Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Just one, Mr. Chairman.

You said that the documents remained secret for 33 years. If you count 33 years after the war, that brings us up to 1978, and 35 years after the war would take us to 1980. Consequently, 18 years have elapsed since the papers were made public. Why have you waited 18 years to reassess the situation and make a claim? How do you explain this 18-year delay?

[English]

Mr. Robert Linden: The documents are only available when they are requested, and after being released from security. You have to know what you're looking for to request a particular document. They're not just sitting there in piles. You have to look for a file reference number—“Hong Kong Veterans” something or “Royal Winnipeg Rifles” something—and then search for that file.

So the intervening 18 years are just a function of when you get at it, when someone gets at it, when someone takes the effort to find it.

The Chairman: All right?

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: That's all for the moment.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there other questions, then, from members?

Mr. Earle.

Mr. Gordon Earle: I do want to commend Mr. Linden and thank him for an excellent presentation, and let him know that we certainly support justice being done in this situation.

I'm still a little bit confused. You'll have to forgive me on this, but I would like a little clarification. Some research documentation that we were given in preparation for the meeting indicates this:

Following their repatriation, the Hong Kong POWs were made eligible and were paid the supplement from 17 May 1945 until two months after their return to Canada. The personnel of Canadian warships which joined the Royal Navy fleet in March 1945, however, were made eligible for the payments as of the date they arrived in the Far Eastern Theatre.

It concludes by saying:

He is now presenting this grievance on behalf of Hong Kong veterans and claiming the Japanese Campaign Pay supplement for the period from 8 May 1941 (the outbreak of war with Japan) to 17 May 1945, together with interest and calculated in 1998 dollars.

• 1640

Is that correct? Because I understood you to say earlier that nobody had received anything for any period of time, except the nine dental officers. But this research—and I'm not trying to substantiate the veracity of the research—implies that the Hong Kong vets did receive some pay, but only for the period of 1945 up until two months after their return.

Mr. Robert Linden: Yes, in 1949, under Privy Council Order 1286. In 1949 of course it became ridiculous, and the public then knew in general terms that the Hong Kong vets had not received Japanese campaign pay, whereas others had. So the government took this and said, “My gosh, what have we done?” But again, they referred to the original faulty document—PC 3593—and therefore could only grant an ex gratia payment to the Hong Kong vets for that period, because the only thing on paper was the Canadian Army Pacific Force.

So it was an ex gratia payment. It was not a payment for pay. That's why, in calculating their entitlement, I had to show that.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Thank you.

The Chairman: Are there any other questions? All right then, I think we've completed the questions.

Mr. Linden, thank you very much for your very interesting presentation. We appreciate that you and the others came along to speak with us today. Thank you.

Colleagues, now I'll give the floor to Mr. Goldring. He has distributed a motion, I guess with a correction in the year, right, Mr. Goldring? You wanted 1997-98?

Mr. Peter Goldring: Yes.

The Chairman: With that correction, you have in front of you the motion.

So it's over to you, Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I'd like to make this motion:

That the Minister of Veterans Affairs be requested to appear before the committee at the earliest opportunity, but not later than December 2, 1998, to address part III of the estimates and the performance reviews of the department for the fiscal year 1997-98.

The Chairman: That's a proper motion.

Monsieur Bertrand, are you speaking to that?

Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): I just want to find out why December 2. What's the import of that date?

Mr. Peter Goldring: It's just a date, to have it earlier as opposed to later.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: It gives two weeks. He might have a busy schedule or something. That's what I'm looking at.

Mr. Peter Goldring: The intention is to have it on the earliest convenient date. That's establishing a date and a timeframe for it.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: Why don't you just say, “on the earliest convenient date”?

The Chairman: What about deleting the date, Peter?

Mr. Peter Goldring: Well, I'd like to have it as soon as possible, this year.

The Chairman: What if we just put “as soon as possible”?

Mr. Peter Goldring: Or “before year end”. When is the last day of sitting?

The Chairman: We recess on December 11. We'll meet on December 10, I assume.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Before the recess?

The Chairman: Right, we would meet on Thursday, December 10.

A voice: We've already established the schedule until then.

The Chairman: Right.

Mr. Peter Goldring: If the session ends early, though— Before the session ends, then.

The Chairman: Well, we don't know when the session is going to end. That's the problem.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I guess that's why there's a little bit of speculation that the session won't go until December 11. We could meet before.

The Chairman: The motion is on the floor for discussion.

I'd say two things. The minister was here, I guess it was in April, to speak to the estimates. The only other thing is that the motion does relate to veterans affairs, but we definitely agreed as a committee to set a schedule, so we have a schedule of witnesses and so on. How far does that go, Mr. Clerk?

The Clerk of the Committee: As far as I know, until December 11.

The Chairman: It carries us right through to the end of the session. We established a schedule, after we canvassed everyone, including Mr. Hanger. He had quite a bit of input into that.

Mr. David Pratt: Mr. Hanger was part of the steering committee?

The Chairman: Oh, yes.

Mr. Goldring, we agreed to stress veterans' issues right up to the recess, and the clerk proceeded, on that understanding, to line up a number of witnesses who have been waiting. That's the only—

• 1645

Mr. Peter Goldring: But the performance report hasn't been addressed yet, and the idea is to question on the performance report.

The Chairman: Right, right.

What are the logistics, Mr. Clerk?

Mr. David Pratt: Which performance report are we talking about?

The Clerk: It's the performance report just tabled recently about the estimates for last year's performance. It's done every year. It's a new process for estimates. It's supposed to be a little more streamlined and gives a better idea.

The minister appeared on the estimates in April.

The Chairman: In April, yes.

I'm in the hands of the committee. Let's hear from some other members who are waiting.

Mr. Proud.

Mr. George Proud: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have no problem with the motion requesting that the minister appear before us at the earliest opportunity. I wouldn't want to put a date on it, because as you said, we've already agreed to a schedule.

The Chairman: Yes, that's the problem.

Mr. George Proud: We have a schedule. It's important that the minister come here, but it's just as important that we hear from these veterans' groups who have been getting the short end of the stick for the last year and a half, because we were doing other things dealing with defence issues. We should hear from all the groups we can prior to us breaking on December 11.

The minister will come. If he can come before that, fine, but I wouldn't say to him that he has to be here by such-and-such a date, prior to us breaking in December. It's very important that we hear these veterans' groups.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Hart.

Mr. Jim Hart: Can I make a friendly amendment then that we strike “but not later than December 2, 1998” and leave it “at the earliest possible convenience”?

A voice: We could just leave it “at the earliest opportunity”, since it's already there.

The Chairman: Right.

Mrs. Wayne.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: You were saying that you have a schedule to hear from the different veterans' organizations. Have you set a date for the Merchant Navy to come in?

The Chairman: Yes, they were here last week.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Who? Who came?

The Chairman: Mr. Olmstead was here.

A voice: And Mr. Griezic.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, they do not represent the Merchant Navy. The president of the Merchant Navy is elected. They were self-appointed. They do not represent them.

Your Merchant Navy president is Mr. Aurèle Ferlatte. A letter has gone out to the minister today letting him know that Olmstead, Griezic, and Muriel MacDonald do not represent them.

Voices: Hear, hear!

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: That has to be straightened out, and it has to be straightened out right now. We need to hear from the Merchant Navy Association and make sure we put them here and hear from them. They are not the representatives, sir.

The Chairman: Fair enough. I can indicate that it was very obvious to all of us who were here the day they were that they are undergoing quite a bit of their own—

Mr. George Proud: That question was very pointedly asked to them.

The Chairman: There are quite a bit of internal politics among the various members of the merchant—

There's just one problem. To my knowledge—and the clerk confirms this—we don't have a request from the elected president of the Merchant Navy.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: The understanding was that when this omnibus bill was coming forward and they had an opportunity to read the omnibus bill and have input, then they would come before the committee. The bill was to go before a special committee to be looked at, and they then could come as well. But no one has really—

They don't understand that the committee is here. I just went and made a phone call, because I feel they should be here. The president of that organization should be here. He's the one who should be speaking to us.

The Chairman: Sure, and if they'd like to request, we'd be happy to try to accommodate them. But am I correct that there's no request from them to appear?

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: No, they've been dealing with the minister and Mr. Wood, and Mr. Wood was getting in touch with them today, but he had an emergency in his riding and he had to go home.

They were going to have a press conference, and I had told them Bob would be in touch with them by 4 o'clock. So I called them and said, “Don't hold any press conference. Wait until you hear from Bob.” I informed them that in the meantime they should put in a request to come before this committee.

The ones who really represent those men are the ones who should be coming here.

The Chairman: Oh, I quite agree. If they would just contact the clerk, we'll certainly try our very best to accommodate them.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Thank you.

The Chairman: Speaking to this motion, as friendlily amended by Mr. Hart, are we agreed on that, just to take the date out and do it as soon as possible, with our schedule and the minister's schedule meshing as soon as we can get him here? Is that agreed?

(Amendment agreed to)

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Are there other speakers?

• 1650

Mr. George Proud: I just wanted to address Mrs. Wayne's request for the Merchant Navy veterans. This is something I'd like to see. if we can accommodate these people, I'd like to do it, because I too would like to know who represents these people. Bill what's-his-name was sitting down here the other day by himself—

A voice: Bill Riddell.

Mr. George Proud: Yes, Bill Riddell, and he couldn't get before us.

There's a whole group of people singing from different hymn books.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: That's right.

Mr. George Proud: It would be nice to hear who is representing these people.

The Chairman: David.

Mr. David Pratt: I want to raise the whole business of notice of motions. As a courtesy to the members, I thought we had agreed over the last year or so that we would get at least 24 hours' notice of motions coming forward.

The Chairman: The clerk can help me, but there was no formal— You can certainly put that motion on the floor today if you want, but there was no motion to that effect.

Mr. David Pratt: Maybe I won't do it today.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.): Give us 24 hours.

The Chairman: Can you refer that to the steering committee? Some committees have that, as we know, and some don't. So if you could refer that to the next steering committee, we'll look at it, and hopefully we can come to an amicable understanding.

Mr. David Pratt: Maybe we could have the clerk take note of that.

The Chairman: I will do that. It's certainly a proper motion. It's just a matter of giving people lead time. That's the argument for 24 hours.

Mr. Bertrand.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: I just have a question for Madame Wayne.

I don't think the veterans affairs bill has been tabled yet, has it?

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: No.

The Chairman: No.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: So they can come at a later date or something.

An hon. member: They can come now, if they want to.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Bob came to Saint John with the veterans affairs department, and they met there. Cliff Chadderton came as well and met there. They did go through some of it, but there are other things that need to be discussed. They certainly should have an opportunity to make their presentation here to this committee, definitely.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: Would they have something to talk about regarding the bill itself? Because if the bill is not written, it might be—

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: No, I think they want to make their presentation, not necessarily on the bill, but on what they feel. They haven't been treated fairly either. There are certain areas and issues that they wish to address.

The Chairman: Mr. Earle.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Just to add more issues to the fire, I want to ask what the committee's policy is on paying for witnesses to attend the committee, and where do we stand at the moment with respect to that capability?

The Chairman: Maybe I could ask the clerk to answer.

The Clerk: We have no money.

The Chairman: We're broke—that much I know—but how does the process to pay for witnesses work?

An hon. member: If you're paying, I want to be a witness.

The Clerk: Some committees pay them ad hoc as they come along. Others have a motion saying they'll pay two people or one person for each group. But right now we have no money to pay for anybody. It's up to the chair to go to the budget committee and try to seek funds.

Mr. George Proud: Let's go get some more money, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: I'd be happy to do that, if you'd like.

The Clerk: All chairmen are in the same boat right now.

The Chairman: Yes, the budget of the liaison committee, which meets monthly, is pretty much strapped. There are very few funds. The finance committee ate up a huge amount of money in its travels.

But if any member has a request for a witness you think should be funded, by all means forward that, and we will take it from there. I will raise at the next meeting of the liaison committee that we have further witnesses we want to bring in, but if there's a specific witness, I could go on an ad hoc basis there as well.

Mr. Gordon Earle: I do have a specific witness who's been scheduled for December 3, I think, but obviously getting here is a problem for him.

The Chairman: Who's that?

Mr. Gordon Earle: That's xxx Kendall Foster with the Halifax Rifles. xxx As I mentioned last time, it's a pretty important issue for that particular area.

The Chairman: Yes, I remember. I got your letter.

Mr. Gordon Earle: I was curious on two fronts. First of all, if we have no money, are we going to be getting some money, and secondly, do we have a standing policy for this committee as to how those matters are governed in terms of people applying for assistance to appear before the committee?

The Chairman: That's a fair question.

There is a policy. It varies a bit from committee to committee, but the clerk is going to see what he has, whether there's something on record.

Monsieur Laurin has another point.

• 1655

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Chairman, in the travel expense reimbursement policy, a distinction is made between witnesses summoned by the committee and those who ask the committee to hear them. In the latter case, the policy does not provide that the committee is required to reimburse their travel expenses. However, when the committee summons a witness, it must pay that witness's travelling and accommodation expenses. Am I mistaken?

[English]

The Chairman: No, I think you're quite right. I'll read from the minutes of the October 9 meeting:

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, - That, at the discretion of the Chairman, reasonable travelling expenses, as per the regulations established by the Board of Internal Economy, be paid to witnesses invited to appear before the Committee, and that payment of these expenses be limited to two (2) representatives per organization.

So if the committee invites an organization, then up to two witnesses—

Mr. René Laurin: Only the ones we invite.

The Chairman: Right, the ones we invite. So you're quite right. But if they make the request and we agree, then we in essence have invited them, haven't we? We may say we're not going to accept this witness, or not at committee expense.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Well, what about Professor Griezic? Did we pay for him?

The Chairman: I don't know.

An hon. member: Get the money back.

The Chairman: We haven't received a bill. Let's keep our fingers crossed.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: He's from Vancouver now.

The Chairman: I have several other speakers, and I want to raise another issue. I want to make sure you all got the memo from the clerk—you should have received it; it was sent out to each member—about an invitation to this committee to visit Germany in January. Did everybody receive that?

We have been invited by the German government to reciprocate, because their committee was here some time back. We are invited to visit Germany at their expense, except for per diems. The dates are January 25 to 30. Is there any flexibility in those dates? I'm just checking whether we're locked in to those dates. I think so.

Well, if you have any input to the clerk on the dates or if you're interested in attending, would you let the clerk know as soon as possible, in case there's any flexibility? There may not be.

David.

Mr. David Pratt: Do we have any indication of the topics that the Germans want to talk to us about? Are visits to bases planned, for instance?

The Chairman: Good question. I didn't see that. So far, only yesterday was I notified of this by the clerk.

Do we have any indication of topics, Mr. Clerk?

The Clerk: No, we're basically at the embryo stage right now. Actually my contact will be calling me tomorrow, and I'll try to get more information.

The Chairman: Great.

The Clerk: The memo says more details will follow.

The Chairman: They're just making the invitation and giving us an indication of the time. If we have specific places we'd like to visit, let's feed that information to the clerk. I, for one, think it would be good to go to Berlin, for example.

The Clerk: Well, we will.

The Chairman: Oh, we would automatically go to Berlin? Would we have a chance to go and see the NATO headquarters in Belgium? I don't know.

Mr. John Richardson: If you can, see SHAPE, because that's the operational headquarters. The political headquarters is in Belgium.

Mr. David Pratt: In Brussels.

Mr. John Richardson: Yes.

The Chairman: So are we clear on that? There's an invitation to the committee. If you're interested, notify the clerk. If you have any input about where you might like to go, etc., notify the clerk.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin.

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Chairman, during such visits, will our hosts know in advance that the Canadian delegation will be made up of members of both official language groups?

[English]

The Chairman: Are they authorized?

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Will they be informed of the fact that the delegation will consist of Anglophone and Francophone members? I'm asking the question because it has previously occurred that our hosts were not advised and thus expected to receive only Anglophones.

[English]

The Chairman: Oh, I see. Well, I don't know. I know the invitation has been made to the entire committee, which obviously includes you and other members on both sides who are francophone. That's certainly the invitation.

• 1700

As to whether there's a rule to that effect, I don't know, but your point is well taken. As a Canadian committee accepting an invitation, it's important that we have government and opposition members and that we try to have both official languages represented as well. Is that your point?

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Chairman, when our hosts expect to receive only Anglophones, they do not provide for interpretation services.

[English]

The Chairman: I see.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: When they know in advance that our delegation will also include Francophones, they make the necessary arrangements to receive people from both language groups.

An Hon. Member: René, René—

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

[English]

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: It's a good point you've raised, and we would certainly undertake to make sure they are told that we're bringing members who are anglophone and francophone with us, if we do that.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: I'm simply asking that they be advised of this fact. If we are not provided with services in both official languages once we're there, we can live with that, but we will at least know that they have been advised of the fact.

[English]

The Chairman: It's a good point. It's a very good point.

Mrs. Wayne

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: When I was mayor, I was invited to go to Germany, and the government of the day brought a gentleman from Quebec. There was one mayor and three representatives from the government. They did not have any translation for the person from Quebec. I felt really sorry for him. I learned how to speak a little bit of French as I went through, and he learned to speak a little bit of English. He gave me the coat of arms of Quebec, because I took him under my wing as a maire.

You really have to be quite explicit, because what they do is give you interpreters for German.

The Chairman: Yes. My German is pretty weak. My French is much better than my German.

It's a very good point that René has raised, and we'll make sure they're alerted that we want to have translation.

Bob.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Bertrand: Mr. Chairman, will the German government pay the interpretation costs?

[English]

The Chairman: We'll have to enquire about that. All expenses are paid by them except for our per diems. We'll have to make sure they understand that we hope that means translation as well.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: And let's go via Barbados, okay?

Mr. Hec Clouthier: Yes, the Caribbean.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Jim Hart: Please report that that came from the Liberal side.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Robert Bertrand: When do we have national caucus?

An hon. member: January 27 and 28.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: So we'd have to miss national caucus.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: Where is it?

An hon. member: In Ottawa.

The Chairman: Peter, do you have something else?

Mr. Peter Goldring: I wanted to go back to the comments on the Merchant Navy. We should recognize that even though it's hard to identify the leadership for the Merchant Navy, it's evident from the comments by the members who were here at the last meeting that they recognize that it boils down to four basic concerns: to be recognized as war veterans, to be recognized as prisoners of war, to have compensation for years of denial of equality, and to have recognition on ceremonial days.

I realize that Mrs. Wayne wasn't here for that, but the people who were here were in agreement that those are the four basic concerns. Yes, it's a problem trying to understand who the leadership is, but that's the concern of the Merchant Navy's rank and file.

The second thing is, on this redress of grievance and the discussions, are we going to be presenting a redress of grievance? Is somebody going to be? What happened from this meeting?

The Chairman: Well, I didn't hear any motions from this meeting. Unfortunately we don't have Mr. Wood with us today, because he was called out of town.

Can you speak to that redress issue, Monsieur Bertrand?

Mr. Peter Goldring: Can we present a redress from this meeting, from the members, and ask for this redress to be presented to the minister?

Mr. John Richardson: You can't represent the Merchant Navy people unless they actually document you or ask you to stand in.

The Chairman: No, you're referring to—

Mr. Peter Goldring: We're talking about what we heard today from Bob Linden.

• 1705

Mr. John Richardson: I know that's what you're talking about. They'd have to deputize us to represent them, and they haven't done that. We'd have to ask them to do it. We just can't go and represent—

Mr. Peter Goldring: Well, that's my question.

The Chairman: As part of his presentation, he raised that very point, in a way.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of clarification.

The Chairman: Yes, Mrs. Wayne.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I also have the four points that Mr. Goldring had, but there's a fifth point as well, and they faxed it to me today, and Muriel MacDonald also faxed it. They are in agreement with the Merchant Navy Association that they're also looking for some form of compensation. That's the fifth point. They are also behind that as well.

The Chairman: Thank you. Are there other matters? I think we're up to date now then.

Do I have a motion to adjourn?

Mr. Robert Bertrand: I so move.

The Chairman: We're adjourned.