NDVA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA DÉFENSE NATIONALE ET DES ANCIENS COMBATTANTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, April 29, 1999

• 1200

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.)): I would now like to call to order the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs. Before we go to our witnesses, I'm going to give the floor to Mr. Goldring to make a sad point, but one that I think bears being made, especially given the topic we're discussing today.

Mr. Goldring.

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

Over the weekend, a long-time advocate of the merchant navy concerns, Mr. Gordon Olmstead, passed away. I attended the services yesterday. The services were well attended. His son spoke very highly, and emotionally of course, about his father. In the merchant navy and World War II, he had spent four years as a prisoner of war, and since that time he has been advocating—for years—for improvements to the merchant navy concerns.

If it were possible to do, and I don't know if it is, I couldn't think of a more fitting tribute on a long-term basis for him than to name this Bill C-61 the Gordon Olmstead Act. I think that would be a fitting tribute. Perhaps others might give consideration to it too.

But I want to say that his service was well attended, and he was very fittingly spoken about too. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Goldring.

I too had the pleasure last May to travel on a pilgrimage to England with a number of our veterans, including Mr. Olmstead and his wife, who was accompanying him—very pleasant people. Mr. Goldring was on that trip. I considered it an honour to talk to Mr. Olmstead about his experiences.

I want to extend my personal sympathies, as the chair of this committee, and also on behalf of the Government of Canada, to Mrs. Olmstead and to the family in their time of loss.

Thank you for being there. I know you were, and the government was well represented at his services as well.

Let's then go to the business at hand today. We welcome, first, Cliff Chadderton, chairman of the National Council of Veteran Associations in Canada.

Do you want to introduce your colleague, Mr. Chadderton?

Mr. H. Clifford Chadderton (Chairman, National Council of Veteran Associations in Canada): Yes, I will.

Mr. Chairman and members, it's a great privilege to be here. I want to join in the tribute to Gordon Olmstead, and I do want to say that I had some correspondence with Gordon not too long ago where he was suggesting that perhaps it wasn't necessary for me to appear. I was willing to abide by that because of my respect for that man; however, he later came around and said, no, I think you should appear. That is why this committee may have heard that I cancelled the date and then I came back and said, no, we would be here.

My colleague is Brian Forbes, who is a practising lawyer in Ottawa. He is also the unpaid secretary general of NCVA.

I want to cite one case, if I may, that probably tells more about why I'm here. This man's name was Kelly. He joined the merchant navy very early in the war. He was on a ship, not through a manning pool but a privately owned ship. He was injured by a cable that snapped and took almost all the flesh off his right leg. When the ship got to Liverpool, he went into a hospital. The British government looked after him for three months and then discharged him. The Canadian government had no responsibility for the man at any time—and we're talking about a man who had already had three or four trips through dangerous waters.

He worked his passage back to Halifax, and then he hitchhiked from Halifax to Winnipeg. He went on relief because he could not work; he was seriously injured. He was on and off relief or “social welfare”, as we called it, from 1945 until 1962 when the new amendments came in for War Veterans Allowance and he qualified for War Veterans Allowance. He died shortly after that.

• 1205

That's the type of thing. We'll hear a lot of discussion about benefits that were denied and everything, but I really believe the story starts not with what happened when they were denied benefits after World War II, but with the way the government looked at the merchant navy during the war.

I filed with the committee some time ago my main submission, and I think it has been circulated in both languages. I was not going to refer to that today. I'm very conscious of the fact that this committee has heard a lot of information, and I don't want to repeat it, so I'm going to the highlight or précis system and I'll draw to your attention a document, which I think the clerk has distributed, called “Compensation: Members of the Canadian Merchant Navy”, briefing notes. That way, we can save a lot of time.

First, to explain who and what the national council is, the National Council of Veteran Associations has been an accredited body since 1932. It now represents 34 organizations, and they include some peacetime groups—the nursing sisters, the paratroopers, the war amps, all of the kinds of odds and sods—and those are the people on whose behalf I speak.

I would like to refer next to the e-mail website document produced by the Department of Veterans Affairs and updated just recently, in April 1999, and to one statement from Fred Mifflin, the minister: “Canada has the best veterans benefits in the world because Veterans Affairs Canada has always looked forward, not backwards.”

I have heard that statement, that we have the best veterans legislation; I've heard it since 1945, and I'm proud to say I had something to do with it way back then. I'm probably a lot older than I look. As a matter of fact, next month I'm celebrating my eightieth birthday. However, my birth certificate says 60 years of age, and if anybody wants to come to a birthday party, it's not going to be one.

Anyway, let me get down to the Mifflin statement. That statement is a credit not just to governments past and present, but it is also attributable to the work done by the Royal Canadian Legion, the ANAVETS, the war amps, all these veterans organizations, and we're very proud of it. But I must say, as matters stand right now, my suggestion is that there is a very black mark on whether we have the title to the best veterans legislation in the world. I think something has to be done to remove that black mark, and I am referring, of course, to the whole story of merchant seamen, not just Bill C-61 and what we hope might come after that.

I have highlighted the document so that it's easy for all of us; I'll turn a page and you'll find what I'm talking about. But first, as to the information this committee has had available, the war amps did a video called Sail or Jail, and we have provided for your committee the script of that film in both French and English. It's being played on community channels across Canada on a very regular basis right now, and it is really part of this submission.

The main submission is on white paper, and as I mentioned, you have already had that. The rest of it will be the document that I'm using, my briefing document.

The Chairman: Mr. Chadderton, just so you're aware, I would indicate to you that at the last meeting I again referred the members of the committee to the video that you provided to each of us, and so I know every member has had a copy for quite some time and has had a good opportunity to view that video.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: I am aware of that, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.

In the remainder of the briefing notes, I will refer to my main document, and I've tried to boil it right down to the bare essentials.

• 1210

There was some discussion before this committee about other groups that were covered in the old Merchant Navy Veteran and Civilian War-related Benefits Act, such as the auxiliary services personnel, the ferry command personnel, that type of thing. I should like to suggest to the committee that NCVA is not abandoning those groups at all. We have been arguing pretty vociferously on their behalf, but we feel the focus of this committee should be on merchant seamen and what we're going to do there.

The next item that is very important in my mind is the pension coverage during wartime. I draw your attention to Order in Council 3359, and to the date, November 10, 1939. That's when the coverage started, and it's also when, in my view, it was apparent that the Canadian government was making great statements about the sacrifices of the merchant navy, but they were not carrying them through in their legislative coverage. This November 1939 provision said that a merchant seaman would be covered only if the injury or death was occurred in direct action with the enemy, or in counteraction with the enemy. That is certainly not going very far compared with the insurance principle that covers members of the regular forces.

The other part of this draconian Order in Council was that the member was required to make an application within one year. This could be a man at sea who, as happened to my friend Kelly, was dropped off in hospital in Liverpool and who wouldn't have had time to make an application even if he knew.

Secondly, a lot of merchant seamen, because of the very nature of their service, never settled down long enough to learn what might have been available if they were injured and whether it was direct action with the enemy.

The other thing is that I defy anyone to give me a definition of “counteraction”. Think of it for a moment, please. It said direct action with the enemy or counteraction, but what does counteraction mean? Does it mean that the ship's master got a signal saying there are U-boats in the vicinity and the convoy started to zigzag? In that case, every merchant seaman would qualify because every convoy zigzagged unless you were on the Queen Elizabeth, which could outrun the submarines and everything else.

I had dealt previously in an appearance before this committee with the question of financial loss. I'm not going to deal with figures today except for these ones. If you take income support, which is War Veterans Allowance for your armed forces veteran, there was no War Veterans Allowance available for merchant seamen until 1962. If you qualified in 1962 like my friend Kelly, how much money did he lose because the government waited 17 years to do something? I think our actuaries have come up with a figure of at least $45,000.

On disability pensions, there was no realistic coverage until 1992, and taking an average case of a 40% disability pensioner who couldn't qualify until 1992 or 1993, at 40% what would his loss be over the years? That's 47 years. His loss would be perhaps in the area of $70,000.

It's the widows, Mr. Chairman and members, who have not really been brought before this committee. I have read all of the evidence. You see, the man served in 1945, but he could not qualify for War Veterans Allowance until 1962. If he had died first and he was married, his widow would not even be a widow in connection with VAC.

On the question of pensioners, it was not until 1992 that the pensioners really became eligible for full veterans' coverage. If a veteran died before 1992 he would have a widow, but she is what I call a phantom widow. She is out there, but nobody has any record of her, and she really has, under the legislation, no entitlement. I'm not suggesting she should have. I'll deal with retroactivity later. But I am suggesting that we are looking here at part and parcel of how we dealt with the merchant seamen during the war, and how we dealt with them for the first 47 years after the war.

• 1215

We come next to something often repeated before this committee, the benefits under what we call the Veterans' Charter. There were about 24 of them and the merchant seamen didn't qualify for very many of them. I'm only going to mention two or three of them, such as rehabilitation grants, reinstatement in civil employment, education assistance, Veterans' Land Act, that type of thing. That is not the main purpose in my mind for the government doing something now, and I will be recommending a lump sum grant. It's not the main purpose. Yes, they missed out on all this, but they also missed out on everything the armed forces veterans, including me, had available to us while we were serving and for the first 47 years after our service.

I'd like to draw the attention of the committee—and I know members of Parliament like to do this—to the Order in Council 3359 of November 10, which I mentioned before. I've seen documents that are telling me, wait a minute, your merchant seamen were covered right from 1939. May I repeat once again the insurance principle. The insurance principle means that a man could join my regiment, the Royal Winnipeg Rifles, he could step outside the barracks in Winnipeg, he could get hit by a taxi, he could lose a leg, and he would be covered—this is the insurance principle. With the merchant navy, what this Order in Council meant was that it had to be in direct action with the enemy or counteraction. If you look at the black mark, as I call it, I think that's really where it starts.

I also know that members of Parliament like to make reference to legislation, and I draw your attention to the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act, which was passed in 1946, which is just toward the end of World War II. The government got around to passing an act, and what did it say? It said, if a merchant seaman dies at sea, it's the responsibility of the employer or the provincial workers' compensation act. And there was only one province that covered them, and that was British Columbia. So even as late as 1946 we had government ministers lauding the work the merchant seamen had done and their sacrifices, but in 1946 they still passed an act saying, sorry, but if something happens to you you're the responsibility of your employer. But they did require the employer to pay a pension; and the pension was $45 a month for the widow, that was it.

It's a main point with me, Mr. Chairman. That's why I say it's a very complicated issue. It's a main point with me that this is all part of the story we're looking at.

Now for the payment proposal, which has been coming up time and time and time again; and it's an ex gratia payment if you like. I've heard it said, when people have asked the question, that this won't do anything for your merchant seamen who are already dead. Of course I recognize that, but it will do something for those who are still alive. And if we're looking at a lump sum payment, you can only take those who are alive and their beneficiaries and say we've made a mistake and we have to try to correct it.

I have made reference to four types of ex gratia payments in which I happen to have done some work. One of them was your first merchant seamen accident, and that was the Halifax explosion of 1917. It might surprise some people to know that DVA is still administering benefits on behalf of the people still alive. But that was a kind of ex gratia payment. The Japanese Canadian payment was an ex gratia payment. The payment to the thalidomide victims of Canada was an ex gratia payment. The payment to the Hong Kong veterans of Canada was an ex gratia payment.

The thing that always impressed me, Mr. Chairman and committee members, is that an ex gratia payment of that type does not attach blame to anybody. This situation is so complicated, you can't go back and say, this government was wrong, that government was wrong. You have to face the situation, and that is what we have to try to do today, and we have to try to correct it.

• 1220

The Chairman: Mr. Chadderton, I'm sorry to interject. I can see that my colleagues—sitting in lots of committees, I know the feeling myself—are really anxious to ask you some questions. You usually are very good with your responses and helpfulness. Could I, without trying to hurry you, get you to come to your summation? I think questions will be very, very useful. I just want to make sure we have lots of time for questions.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: Very good, very good.

If there were such a thing as a lump sum payment, I want to reiterate that it should not be merely because these people didn't qualify for the Veterans' Charter benefits like vocational training. It should be because they waited years for income support—until 1962. They waited until 1992 for reasonable pension support, and the government did not establish a re-establishment program for them.

We have made a proposal here—and it's only something to think about. I've been dealing with government committees for quite a long time, and I know that when you go to a government and say,this is going to cost so much, and somebody says $200 million or what have you, that makes it a little difficult. I feel that you could take the thalidomide settlement as an example—an annuity, a lump sum payment, and then so much a month, and then the balance would go to the beneficiaries with the man dies.

On the merchant POW situation, you mentioned Gordon Olmstead, and again, I must bring out to you that this was probably the worst oversight we've had in our veterans program. Here was a man who was a prisoner of war for six years, and yet under the Pension Act he was only allowed a payment for 910 days despite the fact that he was in prison for 2,190 days. That's something we can't correct for Olmstead and we might be able to correct for a few of the remaining POWs, but it's an indication of where succeeding governments did not take into account what these people had done and that the legislation was not there for them.

The next thing I wanted to suggest, Mr. Chairman, is a study group. I don't want to hear anybody say, “Not another study group”. I want to go back in history. One of the worst problems we had as veterans was to decide how much 100% pension should be, the basic rate. If you go back in history, in 1965 to 1968 there was the Woods committee report and they couldn't deal with it. In 1972 it had become a real issue, and so the minister, Mr. Otto Lang, set up a study group, put us on the fast track, and said if you want to deal with the study group you'd better give up your July, which we did.

On that study group were members of DVA whose positions were dug in, and we had to talk them out of it—members of all veterans organizations. That study group produced a report that said from now on the basic rate of pension would be based on a composite group in the public service, and that got into the legislation. I simply suggest to your committee that a study group can serve this purpose—where you're dealing with a very complicated issue, they can serve the purpose of going through it all.

Now, I will very quickly point out that you've seen the film Sail or Jail, and I have produced for you here the main points of that film. That's at flag 2.

At flag 3—and I'm not going to spend a lot of time on it—we have done a review of what you will find on the Internet that Veterans Affairs Canada is putting out right now. I am not criticizing Veterans Affairs. What I am saying is that down in Charlottetown there is a real lack of knowledge on the whole merchant seamen issue, and if we could have a study group and get the VAC people on that, we would be able to solve an awful lot of these problems.

• 1225

Having regard for your suggestion and the time and everything else, I would mention one or two other things that may not have come to your attention. In my film Sail or Jail I dealt with the SIU, and how that union was brought in from the States to ruin the Canadian Seamen's Union. I'll file this with the committee if you like, Mr. Chairman, because it's hard to find.

The Chairman: Yes, that would be good.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: This is a copy of the report of Mr. Justice Norris and the three things he found out. One, Mr. Hal Banks was an absolute crook—and he doesn't mince any words—the Canadian Seamen's Union was not communist-dominated, but Mr. Banks and the SIU definitely did come into Canada and completely ruin our Canadian Seamen's Union. Now, the CSU was the only group in the post-war years that could have fought for these benefits that we're still fighting for now. I'll leave that and file it with the committee.

Finally, I would draw your attention to the report of the Australian government. I can get you a copy of this if you can't get it, but I would just point out to you why this is important. What Australia did is say they would follow the British, and what the British did was, right from the outbreak of World War II, cover merchant seamen the same as army, navy and air force. The Australians said they would do the same thing, but time went on, and by about 1972 the merchant seamen in Australia said, wait a minute, we get the same as the British merchant seamen, but we don't get the same as the Australian army, navy and air force. There was a public inquiry, a very good report, and the recommendation was to put merchant seamen on exactly the same basis as you have put the rest of the armed forces.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that I would enjoy the question period too. You've had a lot of documentation. I have some more that you can read up on—

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: I'm at your disposal, sir.

The Chairman: We appreciate that. Thank you very much. Thank you for trying to be succinct, because I know there are a lot of questions.

I want to go to them right now, starting with the Reform Party and Mr. Goldring. A first round of questions, I recall for colleagues, is 10 minutes.

Mr. Goldring.

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

In the last committee meeting there was a presentation that also listed, as you have too, the various items and features that were given to other veterans that were not given to merchant navy veterans, but in that proposal they had offered a figure of $100,000 that in their estimation these various things would have meant over a period of years.

I want to talk specifically about a couple of them; for example, with education assistance for those that would get a university education, money for trade schools, money for additional education. I think it would go without saying that those people who had that education impacted not only their immediate family future but possibly intergenerationally for generations afterwards. I think it's pretty well understood that higher education also impacts the next generations too.

If we look at things like business grants or even business loans...I'm from the business world and I know how valuable and tough it is to get a business loan, let alone a business grant, and those types of advantages to me would be very difficult to put any number or figure on whatsoever. My question is this: It had been generally agreed that the $100,000 figure was a bare minimum that has impacted generationally since that time; would you comment on that, and would you feel too that the $100,000 number is a bare minimum figure, even though it would be very difficult to calculate exactly?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: Through you, Mr. Chairman—Mr. Goldring, I certainly wouldn't want to suggest that $100,000 is a figure upon which you could place any great amount of validity, because it's all guesswork. But I would say that if we have a minister today who's saying that our veterans program was the greatest in the world, that has to mean that with the one million members of the armed forces who were discharged and have available all of these 23 benefits, dollar-wise there was a lot of money involved. That's all I could say on that, bearing in mind that various ministers, including Mr. Lionel Chevrier, said during the war that the job these people were doing was the equal of any job of anybody in the armed forces.

• 1230

I think there's no way to say $100,000 is the right figure. I think you have to take it as generally what was denied these people, and if you take that as what was denied them, you can bring up all kinds of cases. You can say this guy could have been a lawyer; this guy could have been an engineer. I would not want to get into that argument. I'd simply say they were denied these benefits, because Mr. Chevrier said we need them for our mercantile marine, and so they got no benefits until 1950, when they were kicked out, and then there was no program for them at all.

Mr. Peter Goldring: So it would be practically impossible, then, to do any hard number-crunching or calculation on what the veterans actually missed out by not having these grants and allowances. It would be practically impossible now to try to calculate that.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: There's no calculation that should be made. There's a generalization that could be made, though, and that is that it was a very good program and a lot of people benefited who were in the armed forces, and the merchant navy did not.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Now, you also say in your submission here that you have no comments concerning the proposed amount, and yet we have seen some numbers and some ideas on what type of compensation they're looking for. One of the comments was $20,000 for merchant navy and $20,000 for prisoner of war. Do you have any feeling on that number or other numbers? Where would we start on it? What idea or range would we be looking into?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: I do not want to suggest, Mr. Goldring, that to put a figure forward for me would be falling into a trap, but it would be. I think a lot of study has to be done on this. I think all of the merchant navy groups have to be heard, perhaps in a meeting with the veterans groups and with DVA, not in the arena of a parliamentary committee, before we decide. I know I've been interviewed by the media, and so have you, and when the media says “What do you mean, $30,000?” I say you're on the wrong track. It's not money. It really is what were they denied. Then the media says, “Yes, but you're suggesting a lump sum.” I say that I am, but not off the top of my head. That would really have to be an area for study by a study group.

Mr. Peter Goldring: With that in mind—you mentioned a study group—who do you feel would be best to be on this study group, and how would that work in relationship to this committee? The mandate of this committee, I believe, is to investigate if there are grounds for compensation. How would that fit in with this, in your mind?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: My suggestion, Mr. Chairman and members, is that this committee could make a recommendation to the Minister of Veterans Affairs suggesting that this is a very complicated issue, that he should set up a study group on a fast track, and that the membership should include perhaps the Deputy Minister of Veterans Affairs, the president of the Royal Canadian Legion.... I would serve on the study group. I certainly wouldn't serve as chairman, although somebody put that forward. You have the government involved, you have the veterans organizations involved, you have all of the merchant navy people, and they would sit down and hash it all over and see if they could come to a consensus. I think that could be a recommendation from a parliamentary committee.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I'd like to talk about some of the earlier comments, and there have been some misconceptions. There have been suggestions that merchant navy sailors were paid higher than regular forces. Maybe you could explain that for us.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: Yes. Mr. Goldring, I put into my brief the figures I got from the Department of National Defence. Taking a bosun who is a standard, perhaps non-commissioned officer and a staff sergeant in the army, what was the difference in pay? The difference in pay for a merchant seaman bosun was an extra $6 a month. That was it. However, the merchant seaman had to find all his own clothing....

• 1235

In the army we had a saying that it was all found. You got everything. The merchant seaman was non-found; they got nothing. They had to buy everything, even their toothpaste and their medical-dental. So this pay myth—and it is a myth—has been played back and forth for years. As far as I'm concerned, the statement that was made to the Honourable Mr. Michaud when he was Minister of Transport—and it's in my brief—was that the pay for the merchant navy was certainly not even on the same standard as that for the armed forces. End of story.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Some other comments were made too, and I think it's worth explaining that the merchant navy were in a theatre of war; that's where they served, and they were subject to submarine attack at any moment. That's just the nature of the job. Whereas the other military may be in a theatre of war or may not be in a theatre of war. There were over 70 merchant navy ships that were lost, were sunk, and their casualty rates were at a higher rate than any of the other three services.

Could you comment on that, Mr. Chadderton?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: I don't think there's any question about it. And anybody who has studied it and knows what the black gang was, for example, would just throw up their hands and say, not for any amount of money would they climb into the hold of a tramp steamer, whose maximum speed was six knots crossing the Atlantic, when 30% to 40% of the convoys never made it. I think that's the answer to it. I don't want to take anything away from the coastal gunner of the artillery; he was doing his job, that's where the government placed him. It's really apples and oranges, in a sense. But it was a dirty job.

All you have to do is go back to the comments of the ministers of the day—Michaud, Chevrier, and Ian Mackenzie. What were they saying? They said these people and their service were just tremendous. And we knew what the casualty rate was. It was very, very high. Beyond that, I wouldn't want to say...I think everybody understands that it was a lousy, dirty job.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Goldring.

[Translation]

I give the floor to Mr. Laurin of the Bloc Québécois.

Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Chadderton, I had the time and pleasure to view your video which, by the way, is a very fine production. This audio-visual document shows us that you are an excellent teacher. If all veterans were as resourceful as you, there would perhaps be less need to speak of assistance today. You have fared very well.

You deplore the fact that at the end of the war, no assistance was provided to veterans who might have undertaken university or vocational studies. At that time, I was in elementary school. Approximately 20% of students went on to secondary school, and barely 10% of those who completed high school continued or completed university. So it was a very small percentage. We could make an analogy with those who learned a trade. In my family, we were nine children, whereas in my wife's, there were 13. Many of them learned a trade, although they did not do so at school, but rather on the job. They became apprentices and learned their trade with a mentor who taught them the basics.

Since this is how things were in civilian life, that very few people attended trade school, there were very few graduates, and, in fact, very few people attended secondary school, and not always because they were lacking in money, interest or simple intellectual capacity, what leads you to believe that things would have been different for veterans? Since so few civilians got such education, why do you think that more veterans and merchant seamen would have enrolled?

• 1240

[English]

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: First, I wish to thank you, sir, for your remarks about the film. The Veterans' Charter was probably a leap forward in its day with regard to training, and there were three possibilities. There was training on the job. There was vocational training, and there was apprenticeship training. That's in addition to secondary school and university. The difference was that because the serviceman had lost five years of his life, something had to be done to make up for that. What the government did was say if you could get training on the job, they would pay the employer to train you, and they would pay you $52 a month to live. That is what was denied to the merchant seamen.

As I've said earlier, Mr. Laurin, even if it's only 10%, that's 10% of merchant navy people who had no opportunity. Incidentally, in the VAC website today you will see that they did pass an Order in Council for the merchant seamen, but the catch in it was that it didn't come into effect until 1949, the man had to be under 30 years of age, and he only had nine months to apply and that was it—whereas a man in the army could apply for any of these benefits, he could get his $52 a month, and there was no limitation. It was just another discrimination against the merchant seamen, sir.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Chadderton, I am not saying that 10% is a negligible percentage, but rather that, in view of the fact that so few civilians completed such studies, I think that it is unrealistic to use this criteria to determine the amount of compensation.

Obviously, if we were to conclude that all veterans would have obtained a university diploma and have earned from $30,000 to $50,000 per year, we would ask for much greater compensation. However, if we consider that this was the case for only 10% of people, this has a direct impact on the compensation that we might consider paying. This may not be an absolute criterion, but I am pointing these things out because the arguments that you present in your video are often heard. You mentioned a son who might have been a lawyer, another who might have become a physician, and a third who might have become a dentist; however, I am almost convinced that very few of them would have achieved this.

On the other hand, you have recommended that a group be created to study the issue. In the time that I have been a member of this committee, I think that we have rarely heard as many witnesses on the same subject, and the new witnesses repeated what the previous witnesses had told us. This leads me to conclude that your situation has been well explained. I assure you that we understand the issues. Since new witnesses come to say the same thing, I believe that we have nothing else new to learn about the situation. What more could another study do than our committee with respect to making recommendations to the Minister? Do you not think that our committee, which has been tasked with examining the matter and hearing from you, is not sufficiently informed to arrive at satisfactory conclusions with respect to your claims?

[English]

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: Mr. Laurin, first, if I could just go back, to compare the civilian in the war years with the merchant navy, you have to understand that the civilian stayed in place. The merchant seaman was whisked away across the Atlantic and lost five years of his life.

• 1245

Secondly, my proposal for a study group is only an idea. If this committee feels it has all the information, naturally it can come to a recommendation. The value of the study group was that it could spend eight-hour days—and I was on it—five days a week for a period of four months getting all the knowledge, and then come back to the minister and say how they felt he should do it.

I've been following the minutes and I quite agree with you a lot of information has been put to this committee. But I am suggesting that when that happened in the past, a study group that did not include members of Parliament, set up by the minister, really solved the problem.

Another solution to that was the Woods committee, of which I was the executive director for three years. Parliament had tried to wrestle with the problem of how to redo the Pension Act. They couldn't do it, so they got Mr. Justice Woods to chair the committee. We worked on it for three years and came through with a report with 143 recommendations, of which 141 were adopted.

It's just an idea, sir. I'm not suggesting your committee does not have the knowledge or capability to do it.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Despite the fact that there are still many small issues to be resolved, if, after hearing your testimony, we make a recommendation regarding a lump sum acceptable to the Minister, would you willingly let the matter drop? A few amendments were already made after we tabled our report entitled Moving Forward: A Strategic Plan for Quality of Life Improvement in the Armed Forces, which also dealt with veterans' issues.

Am I mistaken to say that it's the last matter to be settled? We could still wrangle with other details and drag this thing along for a few months, but if we found a solution to the lump sum compensation, do you think we could close the case?

[English]

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: Yes. For most of the submissions that have come forward, the bottom line is a lump sum in lieu of the benefits that were missed. How much, of course, would depend on whether the merchant navy organizations would accept it. But that would certainly put it to rest. Most of the suggestions that have come forward here have been on the basis that you should not try to make Bill C-61 retroactive and give a pension to somebody who applied five years ago and now wants to apply again. You can't do that.

Although the discrimination that has been involved in the handling of merchant seamen going back 60 years would not be entirely satisfied, it would do the job if a lump sum payment were made to the man and would vest with his dependants, because we have to be conscious of the age of the man.

The Chairman: Okay. Merci, Monsieur Laurin.

Going to the majority side, two speakers have indicated so far, starting with the parliamentary secretary Bob Wood, and then Mr. Proud.

Mr. Wood.

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

Mr. Chadderton, I noticed that the National Council of Veteran Associations resolution on merchant navy compensation is also asking for compensation for the civilian groups. How many people are we talking about here, and just how long is this lineup?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: We are talking about saltwater fishermen, auxiliary services personnel, core and civilian firefighters, RCMP special constables, air raid precaution workers, the voluntary aid detachment, overseas welfare workers, and ferry command. So we're talking about eight groups.

The numbers are a little out of date, but there are about 185,000 right now. However, bear in mind all of these groups have been consulted in regard to what I'm talking about this morning. They have all agreed we should continue to press on their behalf, but we should give the merchant seamen priority.

• 1250

Mr. Bob Wood: In your video, you say the Government of Canada was guilty of treachery in its treatment of merchant navy veterans. Isn't that something of an exaggeration? Don't the facts as you have recounted them suggest more a story of lack of foresight? At the time, these decision-makers were not clairvoyant. They could not predict world events. I think it's safe to say they hoped for a successful post-war merchant navy. They were wrong, but they could have just as easily been right.

Looking back in time, we can see that mistakes were made. But it troubles me that we are judging people who are unable to be here to defend themselves or their motives. I would like you to comment on that.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: When a statement was issued by the Minister of Transport to the merchant navy at the end of World War II stating they would need them for a mercantile marine, the merchant navy were happy with it, and so was their union. The treachery came in—and that's why I refer this committee to the Norris report—when it became apparent we could not subsidize a mercantile marine.

The Canadian government was a party to bringing Mr. Hal Banks of the SIU into Canada and giving him a passport or visa when he should not have had one because he was a criminal. He came into Canada and was given free reign to ruin or cast the Canadian Seamen's Union in a bad light. That was the subject of a committee of inquiry, and that was their recommendation.

Based on the Norris report, I think I'm entitled to say the government was certainly guilty of treachery in bringing in an American union run by a criminal to ruin a good solid Canadian union. By the way, one of the recommendations in the Norris report was that the Canadian Seamen's Union was not dominated by communists, which was one of the games they were playing.

Mr. Bob Wood: I have another question about this so-called treachery. What was the motive? In your mind, why would any reasonable person coming out of the most terrible war in history and knowing what the merchant navy did in that war have it in for the merchant navy?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: I don't like the term “have it in for”, but I'll accept it. Instead of saying “We made a mistake. We've asked these merchant seamen to stay in harness, but we now find that flags of convenience are putting us out of business”, the government at that point should have said to the merchant navy “We're sorry, we don't need you, we denied you the benefits, now we will give the benefits.” Then there would have been no treachery.

Once the government realized we were not going to be able to support a mercantile marine after the war, they should have said to these merchant seamen “You did a tremendous job; we're now going to give you all the help we can for rehabilitation.” They did not do that. Again, I feel that was treachery.

Mr. Bob Wood: Your video quotes Louis St. Laurent as saying “It is not the intention of the government to maintain an industry at the expense of the taxpayer”. Explain to me in what way that statement constitutes treachery.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: That statement is part of the whole package. The treachery started with the Minister of Transport and the government saying they would have a mercantile marine. Then when it became apparent we could not support a mercantile marine, the Prime Minister of the day made a statement in which he said “We will no longer subsidize.”

• 1255

I did not say in the film, and I would not say now, that it constitutes treachery on the part of Mr. St. Laurent. I'm saying that the treachery must lie with those people who didn't pick up the ball and say “The government is not going to support a merchant navy. Therefore, we will make veterans' benefits available.”

Mr. Bob Wood: In your brief on page 8 you state that the value of the War Veterans Allowance a merchant navy veteran was denied from 1945 to 1962 was at least $45,000. How did you calculate this figure? The married rate for the WVA ranged from $1,200 a year in 1952 to about $2,000 a year in 1961. That's if the member had no other income. How did you calculate that?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: We provided an actuary with the rates for War Veterans Allowance from 1945 to 1962. We said if a person would have been able to qualify in 1945 but did not qualify until 1962, what would his loss be? Don't forget, the War Veterans Allowance was pretty low in those days. The figure they gave us was $45,000. I don't pretend to say that necessarily is the be-all and end-all. That's why I'm suggesting that a lot of study be done on that area.

Mr. Bob Wood: Do I have some time left?

The Chairman: You have a couple of minutes left, Mr. Wood.

Mr. Bob Wood: I just want to refer to your quote, Mr. Chadderton, from the 1939 merchant navy pension order. It's on page 7 of your brief. It says that a disabled merchant mariner had only one year to claim a pension. Was it only one year?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: Absolutely.

Mr. Bob Wood: Surely that can't be the whole story.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: I can tell you the story very well. Is that on page 7, Brian? You're talking about the Order in Council that came out in 1939. I'm going to ask Mr. Forbes to respond to that so that we get it in legal language.

Go ahead, Brian, please.

Mr. Brian Forbes (Secretary General and Legal Counsel, National Council of Veteran Associations in Canada): Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr. Wood, as difficult as this is to believe, the actual legislation in 1939 contained a one-year limitation period on claims of disability and death. This was only slightly amended shortly after the war. The legislation said that in circumstances where there may have been a breakdown in communications, the Canadian Pension Commission could relieve that statute bar. They could take it away. But the reality was that for any merchant seaman who was injured, let's say, in 1943—and as you know, many of these individuals only suffered disability years later—the one-year limitation applied. They did not have an argument of communication breakdown. This was not cured until the Woods committee made a recommendation in 1968, which was eventually adopted in legislation in 1971. That's 26 years after the war before that statute bar was removed.

I would suggest to the committee, Mr. Chairman, that it was not just a question of a lack of knowledge on the part of merchant seaman as to their rights. It was that they did not have such rights unless they were able to bring the claim within one year of the disability in question. I would suggest to you that is one the most scathing discriminations because, as you well know, it does not apply to veterans. Veterans can still make claims today and could make claims in 1950, 1955, and 1960 without a statute bar.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Wood.

We're going now to Mr. Earle of the NDP for 10 minutes.

Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, I'd also like to express my condolences to Mr. Gordon Olmstead's family and to express our appreciation for the work he did on this issue.

I want to thank you as well, Mr. Chadderton, for the many hours you've spent on this particular topic and the work you've done. I did view the video, and I was quite impressed with the quality of the presentation and the information contained therein.

• 1300

I have just a couple of questions. One is with regard to the study group you mentioned. I understand from what you said earlier that's just a suggestion. But there's one part that concerns me a bit. It's on page 21 of your main brief. You suggest that perhaps the purpose of the study group should be to determine “whether grounds exist for some form of compensation in lieu of the benefits denied to Canadian Merchant Navy personnel of World War II”. I'm convinced that we've already established that there's a need to compensate the merchant navy for their lost opportunities and so forth, but I'm wondering why you would suggest that a study group would have to look at that particular issue.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: As recently as a week and a half ago, I went to the website and downloaded the latest facts on the merchant navy from VAC, and nowhere in here do I see any recognition that something should be done in the form of compensation. Bear in mind that in the 1972 study group the people who were educated, if I can use that term, were mostly from VAC, then DVA. That's why I'm saying that if you had a study group where the VAC people were full-fledged members, I would hope that the veterans organizations and the merchant seamen's organizations could convince the people in VAC, who are putting out these e-mails and what not, that there are grounds for compensation. You don't have to convince the veterans or the merchant seamen, sir.

Mr. Gordon Earle: The reason I ask is because I have some concern about that myself. I think probably more people on this committee are convinced that the grounds exist for doing something positive, and I would be afraid that if you set up a study committee that was under the control of or dominated by VAC, they could very well come back and say there are no grounds for this, end of story, goodbye. Then you're worse off than you were before.

I just wondered why we were questioning whether or not there are grounds for this. I think the people who have come here and made presentations presented a very clear and convincing argument that grounds do exist. Now let's see how we go about correcting it. So if study groups were to be set up—and I'm not sure they would have to be—I think it would have more to do with the technicalities around the amount that might be granted for the lost opportunities.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: Might I just add that in the 1972 study group, we co-opted members from the Treasury Board and the Department of Finance, and they were extremely helpful in fashioning how the legislation should be set up.

Mr. Gordon Earle: On page 22 of your brief you talk about the insurance principle, and you mention that issue was not covered in Bill C-61. You say of rehabilitation benefits, it still would not produce the situation where there was full equality between the merchant seamen and those who served in the three armed forces. I'm just wondering what suggestions you would have to correct that so that in the final analysis people would be satisfied that there was full equality. How do you deal with that insurance principle issue you've raised?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: I fully believe a study group would come to the conclusion that you cannot apply the insurance principle to merchant seamen in the same way as you can to persons who served in the Canadian Army. The reason is that in the Canadian Army the service went from the date of enlistment to the date of discharge. That's what the insurance principle means. It was complete coverage for any kind of illness, accident, death, you name it. With the merchant seamen there were justifiable breaks in service. You might get a person who was serving with a civilian shipowner and not under a manning pool contract or articles who said, “I want to go home and see my mother and whatnot, but I'll be back.” It would be very difficult to say that he should be covered by the insurance principle during that period.

The differences are very simple. In the armed forces you had an implied contract from the day you walked in until the day you were discharged. With the merchant navy, if you were in the manning pool, yes, but if you were not in the manning pool, you did not have this form of contract.

• 1305

So I would think one of the conclusions a study group could come to would be that you cannot grant—and I would argue vociferously for that—the insurance principle to merchant seamen. But I would then say, because you can't do that, you then have to look at some other way of making up for it, which is a lump sum in lieu of the benefits you're not getting.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Earle.

Now I'm going to go to Mrs. Wayne from the Conservative Party.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Thank you very much.

First, like everyone else, I have deepest sympathy for the Olmstead family. I was in touch with the Olmstead family personally. I had informed them as to why we could not be at the funeral service, because I was fighting that day for Kosovo troops, as you know, for their benefits as well.

Anyway, today we do have with us Aurele Ferlatte, who appeared, as you know, representing the merchant navy. We also have representatives of the coalition, and we have Cliff. They're all here together. So we all know that everybody has come together finally and we don't have divisions within our ranks, okay? I think that's important for everyone to know.

On page 16 of your report, Cliff, you refer to Bill C-84 in 1992 and the $100 million that was allocated in the budget at that time. Then it went down to $88 million, and it looks like $3 million of that was spent, which left $85 million.

Right now, how many merchant navy veterans do you see out there who would qualify for perhaps a lump sum payment, which the merchant navy and the coalition were looking at, which was around $20,000? My understanding is that it would be around 2,000 people. Is that accurate?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: Yes, that is the latest figure I have from Veterans Affairs Canada.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Around 2,000 people.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: If I may interrupt, I think the committee members are all aware that a lot of the records were destroyed, and consequently it is a guess.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes, that's true, because in regard to a lot of the merchant navy men who come to see me, I know we have a hard time finding their records to certify that they were merchant navy seamen. It's really very difficult, but I think the figure is around 2,000 people.

So there is money there for the compensation package that both the coalition and our merchant navy president have been looking at.

Cliff and Mr. Ferlatte, have you asked the coalition about the possibility of a study group? Have they all agreed on this?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: I certainly have been in communication with both Mr. McIsaac and Mr. Ferlatte. Mr. Ferlatte feels that it is a very good idea.

I really have not had a specific answer from Mr. McIsaac, because there are two meetings scheduled. The final one would be on May 4 of this year, at which time we would hope to come together with some sort of consensus as to what the amount should be and also whether there should be a study group.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I see.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: That meeting will be on May 4.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: My other question is with regard to this document. Are you telling me that the Department of Veterans Affairs has published a statement to the effect that 75% of all merchant navy veterans are receiving benefits from VAC?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: Absolutely. That's right from the website. I'm sorry I didn't have time, because it took me a week and a half to do that document, but the committee has it.

Don't ignore the fact that I took the proper route. I wrote to the deputy minister asking questions arising from this VAC document. I had an answer from Mr. David Nicholson—

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Right.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: —and those answers are all set out in there.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Cliff, when did this go out on the website?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: The first time the document came into my hands was about November 10, and that's when I based my letter to David. The latest website, which hasn't changed—

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: It hasn't changed since you spoke with them and dialogued with them.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: No.

• 1310

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: As you just stated, it's totally impossible to know how many men there were, because the records are not there. How can they say that 75% of all merchant navy vets are receiving benefits when you say it's impossible to know, and no one knows, how many individuals served in the merchant navy in any capacity? My God!

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: I just answered that. As I say, really, they have, as we used to say, hoisted themselves with their own petard, because they do say that only 305 veterans are receiving pensions. They give the maximum amount, but they don't say that only three are receiving the maximum amount. They give about 297 War Veterans Allowances—and I have the total somewhere—but it's nowhere near 75% of the 2,000 remaining.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: That's right.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: As I say, there are quite a few question marks in the document to which you're referring, which is the critique of the VAC website information.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: If a study group were put in place, Cliff, what length of time are you looking at—30 days, 60 days, or what?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: I can remember being called into Mr. Lang's office when he was Minister of Veterans Affairs in 1972. All the veterans organizations were there. The president of the legion was Bob Smellie. Mr. Lang said, if I give you people a month, can you come back with a reasonable report? We all looked at each other and said yes, and we did. We did it in a month, and that solved one of the worst problems that veterans have ever faced; that is, the basic rate pension.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: So if this committee decided to go with the study group, you could do it in 30 days?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: I would say certainly the report would be in your hands in plenty of time to take a look at it. What happened in 1972, as you may know, was that the veterans affairs committee commenced meeting one month ahead of the scheduled April Parliament, and we met all of those deadlines.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Wayne.

We have other witnesses. What I'm going to do, though, if it's agreeable, is go to each party and give them an opportunity for one final question, if they have one, for Mr. Chadderton.

I think we've had a pretty extensive discussion, and you've submitted some very useful material, sir. Then, when each party has had a chance for one final question—succinct, please, and a succinct answer, if we can—I'm going to welcome the other witnesses. All right?

If that's agreeable, I'm going to start with Mr. Goldring, and then I'm going to go to Mr. Proud, and so on.

Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you very much.

This is more to add some clarity. The discussions previously were talking about education and what that meant, and the numbers who possibly—and I guess we're guesstimating at this—took advantage of additional education, whether university or trade schools. It might be 10%.

But I think the list of the benefits that the veterans were not given at the end of the war goes much further than that. I think we really have to say on the other benefits—the land grants, the housing, business loans, professional loans, grants for businesses—would it not be equally difficult to guesstimate how many people took advantage of those? I would think on housing opportunities and land grants the numbers might be fairly high. Do we have any idea what percentages of people took advantage of land grants or housing assistance? What percentage of the veterans coming back would have taken those?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: That's exactly why I suggested the study group. The question of education is very difficult to put a figure on.

• 1315

However, in the records in Charlottetown, you would be able to find the number of veterans who took advantage of the Vocational Training Coordination Act, university training, Veterans' Land Act, those types of things. The kind of benefit that you will never find is the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act, because that was a big hammer over the head of the employer—take the man back—but it did not apply five years after the war. I administered that act, I know. That's where the merchant seamen missed out.

So figures are very difficult to come by. I think you just have to say they didn't have access to these benefits, and therefore there was a financial loss; we don't what it is.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Proud.

Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): I have just a brief comment, really.

First of all, I want to extend my condolences to the Olmstead family. I want to say that Gordon Olmstead was the first merchant seaman I met in 1991 when all this stuff started to come to the forefront. I've had a lot of meetings with him ever since, him and Mr. Griezic back here. So I want to pass my condolences on.

Mr. Chadderton, as far as your study group is concerned, I have a problem with this, and I just want to say this. I am one of the parliamentarians among several who have argued with governments for years that committees such as this should be doing this work. I've argued that study groups and royal commissions, and all this stuff, have caused the taxpayers millions of dollars when committees of the House of Commons, committees of the Senate, can do just as good a job. Maybe we don't spend enough time on it. Maybe we have to have subcommittees of these committees to go out and take on a task like the one you're talking about. That's my opinion of the study group and what should be done on it.

If I could just ask a quick question, Mr. Chadderton, on rehabilitation, re-establishment of benefits denied, on page 6 you talk about the extraordinary ex gratia payment. Could you explain, as you did to me earlier? With this you're specifically speaking about merchant seamen; you're not speaking about veterans who are out there who have never qualified for anything from Veterans Affairs but who would never have been denied these benefits had they gone after them.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: No, I'm not. I think the question before the Canadian public is what I call the black mark. The question before the Canadian public is what should be done for merchant seamen? Do they have a justifiable claim? The answer is yes. How can you solve it? The only way is by a lump sum. A veteran may come along now and say he served in the infantry in World War II and he got out in 1945 and didn't apply for a benefit. That was his privilege. But the merchant seamen didn't have that privilege.

Mr. George Proud: Because only 10% of veterans ever applied for Veterans' Land Act, for instance.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: Oh yes. Of course, the reason for that is with the Veterans' Land Act and its sister, the small holdings program, there weren't very many veterans who wanted to go back to the farm or try to make a living in small holdings. I think that was the answer. But certainly the figures are available. The number of veterans who did receive assistance under VLA or small holdings legislation are available.

Mr. George Proud: Yes.

The Chairman: Thank you again, Mr. Proud.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin, please.

Mr. René Laurin: I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to congratulate these people for the excellent work they have done and to assure them of my own and my party's support for their cause. We will surely try to help them.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Laurin.

[English]

Final question on this side. Mr. Earle.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Yes, just a short question.

I tend to empathize with Mr. Proud on the study groups. I feel far too often there's too much study. And I think the case has been well made here, in terms of the need for some corrective and remedial action on this.

But just very quickly, I notice when you talk about your study group there's one suggestion—and this is just a suggestion—you make about how the payment should take place, in the form of an annuity, and you talk about structured annuity payments, which you put forward as an appreciation of the budgetary problems that government may have.

That aside, because I don't think government should have a problem with the amount, the numbers that have been estimated, in any event, would they be optional, in your mind, or are you feeling hard and fast on the annuity approach? Or if they were to go with an annuity, could some person who might be in need of the cash in totality choose to do that, if a settlement were put forth?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: Quite the opposite. My main proposal is a lump sum grant, and that's it—fair, and no fooling around. However, in dealings with the Department of Finance and others over the years, I've learned that governments are sometimes reluctant to do something, and they take a great big figure and they say “This would cost $300 million. We can't do it.”

• 1320

It has been done. That's all I'm saying in my brief. It has been done in at least four situations in the past, but certainly you'll notice that it's based on three payments—one very large payment at the start, a sort of a monthly payment, and then the remainder would vest with the spouse and/or the estate.

The Chairman: Mr. Earle, everybody has held to the rules.

Mrs. Wayne, last quick question, please.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Like some of my colleagues, Cliff, I really think, having sat on this committee, it has been studied and everyone has made their presentation. I certainly am in favour of some form of compensation for our men, there's no question about that. I don't know if we even need a subcommittee. I think we just have to come to some form of agreement as to what form and how much of a compensation package there should be.

What I would like to ask you is, how long do you think it would take us, if we did put a little subcommittee together, to get this before the government and for the government to agree? Do you think that could be done before the House rises in June?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: I certainly have read every sentence of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, and you certainly have the information.

I could just explain that the proposal for a study group was put out there because it's been used before, and secondly, like juries, committees sometimes get stuck, and so if they got stuck, then the next best solution was a study group.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Okay, Mr. Chairman, you just make sure we don't get stuck.

The Chairman: I wish I had that power, Mrs. Wayne. Thank you, Mrs. Wayne.

A last quick question from Mr. Pratt.

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

Thank you for being here, Mr. Chadderton.

My question, and I'll make it very brief, is this. Compared to other Allied countries—and I'm thinking here of the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and the United States—specifically what benefits did their merchant seamen get that Canadian merchant seamen did not get? Do you know?

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: Yes. In the United Kingdom, the merchant seamen were covered exactly the same as the uniformed regular forces, right from 1939.

In the United States, the merchant seamen had a very terrible time trying to establish some kind of benefits. The reason was that they were very highly paid, some of them. However, in 1986 there was a court case, and following that, the United States made their veterans program available.

As I explained earlier, in Australia they followed the British principle. They covered the merchant seamen the same as the Brits did, for the British people. But the Australians said that was not good enough, and in 1985 or 1986 they had another study and they brought the merchant seamen of Australia up from the level of British seamen to the level of Australian servicemen.

Those three countries I've studied. The rest of them I have not, sir.

Mr. David Pratt: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Chadderton, Mr. Forbes, thank you very much for being here. Mr. Chadderton, you have provided this committee with an enormous amount of very useful information, and we appreciate your time and expertise and being before us on several occasions. Thank you very much, and I hope we will come to a conclusion with this issue in the near future. Thank you for being here, both of you, gentlemen.

Mr. Clifford Chadderton: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen.

The Chairman: Could I call forward the second witnesses, Mr. Gordon Strathy and Roger Beauregard.

As these gentlemen come forward, I would just indicate that Mr. Cloutier very much hopes to come back. He had another very important meeting he had to attend, but he very much hopes to be able to get back here.

• 1325

Gentlemen, you know our time constraint. Question Period is at 2 p.m. We appreciate your patience. I understand you have a fairly succinct brief, and we appreciate that. And then we will try to get all the questions we can in from the members. But thank you for your patience.

Who's going to start? Mr. Strathy.

Mr. Gordon Strathy (National President, Korea Veterans Association of Canada): We'll try to be as quick as possible, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Gordon Strathy: It has been approximately 50 years since the beginning of the Korean War. The new millennium is fast approaching. Approximately 27,000 Canadians served in Korea. They left Canada often with gung ho attitudes and very little thought of how their lives might be changed. Much like those who had gone before these young Canadians, they felt they would be decently taken care of by our government. In some instances this has not been done. If we are to make a difference, it must be now.

Part of the problem was that Korea was not considered a war. It was constantly referred to as a conflict, and if I might be so bold, even by some of our senior officers in the armed forces.

There were 516 Canadians killed during the Korean War. Those of us who were there know that it really was a war. A lot of our soldiers didn't know what to make of the way things unfolded. Were we war veterans or were we not? Many felt the pension board process was both a demeaning and a humiliating process.

I'm sure you're aware that the Pension Act states that if there's any doubt on behalf of the board, it should be waived on behalf of the veteran. It seems that most often this was not the case, at least in first applications. In fact, as I can attest, I felt that justice was not served in my case. I applied for a pension for my hands and was rejected. The reason cited for denial did not sit well with me. I always felt hard done by and, I suppose, neglected by the system. I did not reapply for many years and eventually I was granted a pension for my hands.

This is not meant to be just a gripe about my personal problems; I merely use this as an example of how things went a few years ago. I feel certain there are many other examples out there, and to chronologically put it in shape for you, I first applied in 1972 and I received a pension in 1995.

I'd be less than truthful if I didn't say that things have improved. However, to my knowledge, no longitudinal studies have been conducted on the health problems associated with Korea. Our association did conduct a survey and we found a few significant facts, even though our sample was relatively small. The findings were rather interesting and confirmed a lot of our prior beliefs.

There were proportionately more Korea veterans who suffered gunshot wounds and malaria than those who went before us. And you might want to question this: there were more Korea veterans who suffered gunshot wounds than those in the Second World War. In Korea, the three battalions of about 2,700 people were in the lines. They were all being shot at constantly.

The list of diseases and injuries that our veterans suffered from were numerous. It also appeared that early deaths were common. Yes, our life expectancy seems to be less. Is this the result of our time served in Korea? Many of our comrades-in-arms believe it is.

I've always wondered how we can address the problems until such time as we factually know just what the major problems are within our population. I believe, as I've said earlier, that a major study needs to be conducted before it's too late, to examine all of our health-related problems.

• 1330

The Chairman: Mr. Strathy, if I may interject, I wanted to know if it is your intention to read your whole brief, because we had hoped to have some questions for you.

Mr. Gordon Strathy: I'll go very quickly through it, because I thought this would hopefully set the tone.

The Chairman: Sure. Maybe I'd encourage you to verbally speak to it rather than read it, because we have it for our reference. I say this to assist you so we can get some questions in before we finish the meeting. Okay?

Mr. Gordon Strathy: All right. Fine, Mr. Chairman.

From this point of view, many of the other countries that were involved in the Korean War have already done very extensive surveys and they have found many things that would be shocking to you. And you have at least the Australian survey. It reads like a who's who of what could happen to a young person going to Korea...from the good old chemical DDT, which we realized they sprayed clothing and/or people with and which has since been found to be harmful to humans, animals, affecting reproduction, etc. So I can say no more about that.

We're not merely representing our association. We're representing all Korea veterans and indeed veterans in general.

In defence of Veterans Affairs Canada, they've attempted to fix the situation. And when I say “fix it”, I don't mean to put that in a negative situation. They have attempted to fix the way that pensions are handled. From what would have earlier been a matter of months or possibly years, it is now weeks, and at worst a few months, before decisions are made. And I might add that the plight of the widow or spouse is now uppermost in their minds, so that's good too.

What is it that the veteran really sees as the major problems still existing? I think they can fit nicely into four categories.

One category is pension acquisition and treatment, and I've suggested to you that the process has been demeaning. In order to establish the treatment, you almost have to have a pension, because without it you're a nonentity.

The veterans independence program: For those of you who are not aware of the veterans independence program, it's a program that was put in place to enable a veteran to stay at home rather than go to the hospital. It provides lawn cutting, laundry services, etc. In regard to long-term care beds, you all sit here in Ottawa and you're very close to the Perley-Rideau Veterans Health Centre, so you're fully aware of how the beds are going down, down, down. We will have one veterans' hospital left, and that is in Montreal. The rest will have been given names that don't make them a hospital, therefore the provincial governments don't have to fund them in the same way as if they were a hospital.

As a matter in fact, in terms of the long-term care beds, I have a friend who recently had a stroke, and he is being shunted from hospital to hospital. He spent a little time at St. Vincent's, spent a little time in Barry's Bay, back to Pembroke again, and he's looking for a long-term care bed somewhere.

In terms of health-related studies, in the history of the Korea veterans, no such study has ever been conducted. It was just taken for granted that the studies that came from the Second World War would equally apply to Korea. I was in Korea last week, and I can assure you that what I saw there last week was where we were 40 to 50 years ago. Although attaining a pension today is much less painful, from an emotional point of view many of our older veterans are still very wary, and they say, “Why bother? I still remember the last time I was there.” And it's not so much the sour grapes about the whole thing, but you realize as you get older that you feel put upon when you keep going to these meetings, and you put forth your case time after time. And people who can hardly remember where they put their car keys 15 minutes ago are being asked to recall what happened to them 50 years ago. And to make it even worse, they're being asked, if they can't remember, to get some friend who was there with them to sign an affidavit to that effect. Well, if I can't find my keys, I suggest maybe my friend can't find his either.

• 1335

Most of our veterans do believe they're entitled to a pension. Someone who applies for a pension doesn't do it for a few dollars. They do it because they honestly believe they have legitimate complaints and the government should be addressing those complaints. As I said earlier, treatment is directly related to your pension. There's no doubt about it.

The veterans independence program was intended to keep us at home, to provide a little assistance. There are a few things about it...and I noticed in a Senate committee's report they mention it as well. There's a possibility of cheating. And in some cases it is being granted, while in other cases it is not. So it needs to be looked at.

As I said, I can say no more about the long-term care beds. You're all aware. You read it in the paper every day. And you see it if you go to the veterans' wings. But unless you parliamentarians see a need for this improvement, nothing is ever going to happen. You want to see the changes that are both warranted and wanted. Now, “warranted” means what we're basically entitled to, and “wanted” is what you would like to see in treating a person properly.

Proper care should be a right that we've earned. Just because we were volunteers, it shouldn't mean, well, you volunteered to go to Korea, therefore you knew what you were getting into at that time. I can assure you most of our people were very young and they surely didn't know what they were getting into.

Youth always has the thought in mind that they're invincible. They'll never, ever become ill. They'll always be just as gung ho as when they went to Korea. But you know, life treats us much more unkindly than that. When you get to be 60, 70, and 80 years of age, a lot of things happen that you didn't think would ever happen.

I think our veterans have given a lot and they deserve to be treated fairly. It is imperative that a health study or studies be conducted as early as possible. Korean veterans seem to be a vanishing breed, and I don't say that with tongue in cheek. It is true. We seem to be dying more quickly than a lot of our predecessors.

Now, I know a lot of campaigns have been mustered on our behalf in the past, and I know a lot of politicians have sat here in similar meetings and have said they wholeheartedly agreed with it. Well, what happened was the hopes of the veterans were raised that, yes, these people at last are going to do something, only to be dashed once again. Hopefully, that will not be the case this time.

The Royal Canadian Legion magazine often produces some pretty good articles, and in recent months I've taken to cutting some of them out. One headline is “Hearing Loss Cases Unfairly Dismissed, Legion Tells Committee”. Well, I think if I looked at Roger and me, I'd say we both have hearing loss. The article says about 900 people with hearing loss are attempting to claim pension benefits. Now, you ask yourself about hearing loss and you say, well, my aunt used to have a hearing problem. She had a little horn that she put on her ear. Well, I don't think most people were subjected to the kinds of noises that you would find in the military on a consistent basis; therefore hearing loss is obviously much greater in the military.

The next one says, “Standards Needed for Pension Decisions, Auditor General Says”—

• 1340

The Chairman: If I can interject, we have 20 minutes left. I'm sure you want to take some questions. I don't in any way mean to short-circuit you, but we simply won't have time for questions from all the members if we don't wrap up.

Mr. Gordon Strathy: Then I will take one last opportunity.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Gordon Strathy: The book recently produced, authored by Ted Barris, Deadlock in Korea: Canadians at War, 1950-1953, I think sort of sets the flavour for how we ended up. On page 229, there's a line that quotes Jackie Rae, who used to travel with Wayne and Shuster. It says, “Those kids in Korea were so young,” commented producer Jackie Rae, “That really bugged me. I was angry at first.”

On page 288, it says a young man went home to Alberta, and his father said wouldn't it be nice for him to come down to the legion with him and meet the other veterans. So when he did proceed down to the legion his father said, “Maybe you'd like to say a few words to the other veterans.” The young lad got up to talk, and a voice from the back of the room said, “So you just came back from the trenches in Korea. Why don't you sit down instead of making a...of yourself!” That sort of set the tone for how we were received in places like the legion.

The Chairman: Can we go to some questions now? I think I would really recommend that to you.

Mr. Gordon Strathy: Okay.

The Chairman: Thanks very much for your cooperation. It's hard to know how to schedule some of these meetings, and I think we probably could have used some more time. But I want to go right to questions.

I'm going to go to a three-minute round of questions so that all parties get a fair chance. I'm going to start with Mr. Goldring.

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

Thank you, Mr. Strathy.

I've visited Korea myself, and visited the demilitarized area. It's a rather surreal area; it's like a war on hold. People don't realize that, but it's armed on both sides—it's just simply a war on hold.

But having visited Korea and having seen some of the hills and areas where some of the battles were fought, when I talk to the veterans who come into my office to make applications for increasing their pensions, and they're speaking, as you are here, of arthritis and other conditions, maybe varicose veins, I can certainly see how there was a lot of footslogging. The land and terrain there would be conducive to having future problems such as that. So I can appreciate that better having visited and seen the area.

But my question has more to do with some of the documentation you provided here. You have a quite extensive list of chemicals and other things the veterans were exposed to. There have been some suggestions—and I like your comment on it—of an increase in ailments and their frequency from the experience in Korea compared to the general population. That would certainly sound to be similar to observations raised for the Gulf War and Vietnam.

Is there any similarity or suggestion that there is a kind of Korean War syndrome, which might be more technically known as battle condition syndrome, that creates this increase in ailments over the general population? What would be the main things affecting it and driving it, in your mind?

Mr. Gordon Strathy: I'd like not to use this syndrome bit, because it's being overused. It's a crutch for a lot of things. I think it's safe to say that the conditions there—the chemicals, the diseases—are well documented. I don't think there's any country in the world with that number of diseases listed at that time. You could go to World War II and you won't find that to be the case. It's a combination of Africa, Italy, and Germany thrown into one small place. You know Korea—48 million people. It's a pretty small country.

Mr. Peter Goldring: But these seem to be identified in the Gulf. And perhaps “syndrome” is the wrong word to be using, but they're identifying complications setting in from battlefield conditions. And the Korean War being relatively recent, there were a lot of these chemicals involved in that area, too—a lot of different chemicals, as evidenced by your list here.

Mr. Gordon Strathy: Sure. Roger will add to this.

Mr. Roger Beauregard (Secretary, Unit 7 (Ottawa), Korea Veterans Association of Canada): If I may be permitted to address this problem, the problem is really a lack of empirical evidence that we are different from others. I go to meetings of the local Ottawa unit here, where there are roughly 250 of us—we've lost six members since January—and I hear a lot of complaints. We all yell at each other, because we can't hear. But no study has been made to indicate whether or not there are more of us who suffer from arthritis, malaria, cancer of the prostate, or heart disease than the World War II veterans or the general population.

• 1345

I suggest a study is required to determine the basic facts, because one doesn't exist right now. It should not be a study by a committee, but perhaps DVA could find one of the hundreds of post-graduate students in our universities who, for a very modest amount, could carry out a proper survey to compare the Korean veterans to the general population, veterans of other wars, and so on. Right now we sound as if we're merely complaining, and we don't really have any hard documentation to prove it.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin, three minutes, please.

Mr. René Laurin: You've asked for a study on this issue, but I wonder in what way the people involved in this case are any different from those who for years worked in a factory and feel they've also been contaminated by the products they produced. Take, for instance, people who worked with asbestos and who were exposed to it over many years. As far as I know, no government has spent money on such studies when new illnesses were reported after workers were exposed to a certain product. The Gulf War gave rise to another illness, as did the Korean War, at least according to some people. Why would it be any different for Korean veterans than for Gulf War veterans or factory workers?

Mr. Roger Beauregard: There is no difference between these people and those who served during the Gulf War. I believe the provincial government studied the situation of asbestos workers very carefully. However, the situation of the Korean War vets has never been studied or documented.

Mr. René Laurin: Is that the main thing you're asking of us today? I've noted that you've made several complaints regarding the health care in veterans' hospitals. You may know that in Quebec, people are complaining about the restructuring of paramedic and health care services. I don't think veterans have anymore right to complain than ordinary citizens do. Do you find there is a discrepancy in health care services?

Mr. Roger Beauregard: If the Department of Veterans Affairs had more information, it would be in a better position to judge the situation if a Korean War veteran requested a pension. To my mind, they don't have all the necessary information.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Laurin.

[English]

Mr. Proud, for three minutes.

Mr. George Proud: Gentlemen, I thank you for being here today. I am very interested in the Korea Veterans Association. There are quite a few of them in my own area.

You talk about these health-related problems and say there should be a study. Are you asking us to recommend the study be taken care of? You said, Mr. Beauregard, you don't think we should do it. Are you asking us to ask that some kind of committee be established to do this study on the related sicknesses and—

Mr. Gordon Strathy: We would like you to recommend that a study be conducted, be it an individual conducting a survey or a small group conducting a survey. But we would like some comparison with the other people.

Mr. George Proud: Concerning the pension acquisition, the treatment of the veterans independence program and long-term care beds, are you asking that we study this issue also to try to bring some conclusion?

Mr. Gordon Strathy: If you look at the four areas, they start with the pension and go down to the veterans independence program, because you're moving closer each time to that long-care bed. They're all there. You can't study one without the other.

Mr. George Proud: You say you believe a lot more deaths have occurred with the Korean War veterans than normal in later years, and I see that in my home town. How many Korean veterans would there be in Canada today? Do you know offhand?

Mr. Gordon Strathy: There are approximately 8,000 to 9,000. Within our association we have 2,600, and in the Atlantic provinces there are another 500. So we have 3,100 who belong to associations, and I estimate there would be about twice that number out there.

Mr. George Proud: Thank you.

• 1350

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Richardson, you can finish Mr. Proud's few minutes with a question.

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

It is nice to see you here, Roger. Roger Beauregard was a sprite young officer when I joined with the Patricias. I guess that was the first battalion.

Mr. Roger Beauregard: Not so bright any more.

Mr. John Richardson: That's all right, Roger. You were a smart looking young officer in your day.

In trying to pull it all together, we just came back from Korea and looked at the situation—the terrain and the rough going, and saw the exchange of the bodies at Panmunjom. We had a chance to look at how in the hell anyone could move over there at the time, because it grew back and it's difficult terrain. Only infantrymen could operate. I don't see how wheeled vehicles could get around in that countryside with the mining programs. The living conditions were also very difficult. It gets damn cold in the winter there and very hot in the summer, with a high level of humidity.

You fellows were there in the 1950s. You were still serving, you were being sent off to the Congo, Ghana and Rwanda. In all those areas you were highly susceptible to other kinds of things. If you had any kind of weakness at all, it was enough to knock you flat on your back. So cumulative exposure to those sorts of things outside the normal North American type of climate has an effect on the body.

I'd just like to add to some of that, Roger. I know you've been offshore a number of times. Did you find yourself getting beaten down solely by the role that was being played, or did it originate from the Korean situation?

Mr. Roger Beauregard: I consider myself fairly lucky. I was one of the younger members in the Korean War, for one thing, and I'm in comparatively good health, although I have hearing aids and I take about five different types of pills.

In addition to Korea, I served in the Congo for a year, in India for a year, plus northwest Europe. Korea was by far the most arduous place to serve, not just because of the terrain and the temperature, but because we were literally living in holes in the ground and in trenches, under constant stress and considerable hardship. Compared to Korea, the Congo, where I lived with a roof over my head, was heaven.

Korea was a very difficult terrain to serve in. It's a little-known fact that most of us served there for one year, and in the 12 months in Korea, most of us were in the trenches for anywhere from 9 to 10 months. We didn't spend too much time out of the line. It was very—

Mr. John Richardson: Could you explain to this group what it's like to be in a trench?

The Chairman: I'm sorry. I have to say that's the time. We're trying to compress it and give everybody a chance. Thank you very much for that answer, though.

Mr. Earle, three minutes.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Thank you.

I thank both witnesses for appearing and for their information.

Just quickly, I notice in your presentation you say the major problems still existing fall into four categories, one of which is long-term care beds.

I heard something just briefly the other day. I don't have all the information on it, but I think it was to the effect that the rates for care in these long-term facilities are now being increased in some areas, so they will be comparable with what's being charged in other facilities, and that's creating some difficulty for veterans. Have you any information along those lines, or is that one of the problems you've heard?

Mr. Gordon Strathy: We've heard that being bandied around. But I think the biggest thing is that the hospitals are understaffed, and I can use Ontario as the best example. They have limited beds allocated to veterans. That's the biggest problem.

I have a daughter who works at the Perley, so I can speak from firsthand experience. She works on the veterans' wing, and they have far too few people for far too many veterans. We have a lot of Korea veterans around there as well.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Earle.

Mrs. Wayne.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: On the cuts in the number of beds, they took down our DVA hospital in Saint John, New Brunswick. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, they built a hospital, but they also took down the Centracare, which was the hospital for the mentally retarded. Do you know where they put it? Right next door to the veterans' hospital. I got a call a couple of weeks ago about the mentally challenged people wandering around where the vets are. Merciful God, I don't know what we've done!

• 1355

When we talk about cuts, they wanted to take the chefs and fly the food in, the eggs and the bacon from Toronto. I fought that one, Mr. Chairman, and I saved the eggs and the bacon and the chef. All right. We saved that one, but guess what they took away a month ago? You know, to take them out of their beds they had a little crafts program. Some of the men made the most beautiful little rugs, and they sold them. They would sell them to us. They also had other little crafts, and we'd buy them. They took the craft program from them.

When we're talking about cuts, we're talking about people who have fought to keep peace around the world: Korean vets, World War II vets, and there are only a couple of World War I vets. I was over there. I'm telling you, Mr. Chairman, we have to somehow impress upon government—I don't care who's in power, and you know that—that we have to look after them. They have to be number one. They truly do. I say that to you because when your eggs and bacon get flown in from Toronto to Saint John, New Brunswick, by God, Bob, I'm getting up in the house.

The Chairman: They'd be damned cold, wouldn't they.

If there are members with some other questions, we could stay a few more minutes. Some members will have to leave now for Question Period, and others may be able to stay a few more minutes. If anyone wants to pose another question.... Mr. Pratt has a question.

Mr. David Pratt: I just wanted to follow up on a question that was asked by my colleague John Richardson on the issue of the types of conditions you were operating in in Korea. Maybe I haven't got this correct, but it strikes me that the static type of warfare that was being engaged in in Korea was very similar to the warfare we saw during the First World War in terms of the trenches and those sorts of conditions. Can you elaborate?

Mr. Roger Beauregard: I would hesitate to compare the Korean War with the slaughter of the First World War. I've read quite extensively on the First World War and I visited the battlefields and I talked to veterans of the First World War decades ago. It wasn't as bad as the First World War, but it was the same type of warfare. Certainly the physical aspect was as bad and uncomfortable in Korea as it was in the First World War, but we didn't suffer the absolute massacre of the First World War. But it wasn't pretty.

Mr. Gordon Strathy: If you look at that from 1950 to 1952, it was up the road, down the road, up the road, down the road. One of the comments of one of the veterans who went with us was that as soon as you got to the top of that hill you knew for sure you had to go to the top of another hill, because that was all there was.

Mr. David Pratt: Mr. Chairman, I see we're losing quorum here, but I would like to provide you with a notice of motion in connection with a motion for the next committee meeting at which this motion would be debatable, which I gather is next Tuesday.

The Chairman: That's right.

Mr. David Pratt: It concerns the rotation for the questioning of witnesses and changes to that process.

The Chairman: Very good. So you're submitting it with 24-hour notice.

Mr. David Pratt: That's right.

The Chairman: Okay, Mr. Pratt. So it will appear not as a notice of motion but as a motion.

George, any more questions?

Mr. George Proud: No.

The Chairman: Gentlemen, thank you very, very much for being here. I'm sorry we were a bit rushed at the end, but we have all your written submissions, and that will go into the record, of course. I think you've explained your concerns quite well and shared your own experiences very well for us. Thank you very much for being with us today. I appreciate it.

The meeting is adjourned.