NDVA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA DÉFENSE NATIONALE ET DES ANCIENS COMBATTANTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 4, 1999

• 1619

[English]

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

I'd like to welcome Professor Griezic and Mr. Bill Riddell.

You both have been at this committee before on this matter, but we're certainly happy to welcome you back today.

There was a procedural matter to deal with. Mr. Pratt gave notice of a proposed change in the allocation of time for questions. In Mr. Morawski's absence through illness, we've been working with two clerks. The clerk who dealt with that meeting in which it was presented....

At any rate, there was a miscommunication, so we will deal with your motion first thing at the next meeting, Mr. Pratt, because it's not officially on the agenda today. Maybe the clerk can send that out to all members.

• 1620

So there's a proposal, which I won't get into now, from Mr. Pratt to alter the amount of time for questions.

We really have only one business at hand today, then, and that's hearing the two witnesses I mentioned. I'm encouraging both witnesses to be as succinct as possible so that we can get to questions from the members. We've had quite a bit of information on this important topic, and as I said, both witnesses have been before us previously. We're of course happy to welcome them back.

I'm going to start with Mr. Riddell and then go to Professor Griezic. Then we're going to go to questions.

I'm encouraging you, gentlemen, to leave us lots of time for questions.

Mr. Riddell, please begin.

Mr. Bill Riddell (Representative, Merchant Navy Coalition for Equality): I sent to the committee a hand-scribbled submission, but they got it too late. Mr. Morawski is not well, and it got piled up, but it will be translated and given to all the members, probably this week.

To save time, we can wait until they get it, and I'll just make a few remarks.

The Chairman: This is your opportunity to speak. We will get that information later on to supplement your comments now, Mr. Riddell. You go ahead and say the points you'd like to highlight and then we'll turn to the professor before we have questions.

Mr. Bill Riddell: Okay.

As I guess everybody is aware, we are now legislated as equal war veterans. There are a few side benefits I would like to bring to your attention.

First, it's not only the discrimination we suffered at the end of the war—we were denied equal benefits, as you all know, so we don't have to go into the fact that we got nothing—but it's also what the government deliberately did to hurt us, bringing in gangster unions, and cabinet ministers of the government going against us, legalizing the so-called union. They were really scabs and strikebreakers and racketeers from California.

They managed to get rid of us, which resulted in most of us getting no education benefits—and nothing else. We had a tougher life, a lesser quality of life, than most other people. I can say I ended up with much less than any of you here in the room.

Now that we are legally veterans, on our national war memorial here there's no indication that any civilians served in the war. I would like you to consider the possibility—and it doesn't set a precedent—of engraving the merchant navy badge on the side of the war memorial. Evermore, future generations would know that civilians served in the war. Perhaps it could be the ferry command crest.

This doesn't set a precedent. This was put up for the World War I veterans. For World War II, they engraved it again, for Korea, and perhaps if they had a mind to, they could redo it and put something on there for us.

As well, we're now entitled to go to veterans' hospitals, but it seems to me the government—and this is both parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives, over the years—is washing their hands of all veterans by giving those hospitals over to the provinces.

My brother lived in Calgary. I went out there for his last few months and tried to get him into Belcher Hospital. At that time, anywhere from 12 to 16 veterans were waiting to get in. They have to wait until one dies in order to get in. So there are not enough beds reserved for them.

The Chairman: Mr. Riddell, we certainly all share the concern about veterans' hospitals—indeed, I have a major hospital in my riding—but I want to encourage you to stick to the topic we're here for today, and that's the issue of possible compensation for the merchant marine.

Mr. Bill Riddell: Okay.

The Chairman: In the interests of time, perhaps we can stick to that issue.

• 1625

Mr. Bill Riddell: With regard to the compensation that the government feels is generous, they just gave the Hong Kong prisoners of the Japs $24,000. It comes to roughly $6,000 a year for slave labour. I don't think any of you here would go into slave labour for even $60,000 a year. They were shamefully underpaid.

Some RCAF prisoners of war were confined to a civilian concentration camp rather than put in a POW camp with their comrades. I understand they got $1,000, although a lot of those inmates over the years have collected hundreds of thousands of dollars. West Germany paid it.

Perhaps they would reimburse or compensate our Canadian air force veterans who were confined there. Canada could very well present the bill for whatever generous amount they want to give to the Hong Kong veterans and give it to the Japs instead of sticking it to the Canadian taxpayer.

With regard to the merchant navy prisoners of war, we want to see them paid for the full time they were incarcerated. They got only 30 or 36 months, and most of them were in there 50 months. They're entitled to punitive damages, too, for the neglect and the discrimination over 55 years.

Also to be included are our Allied merchant seamen who came to Canada after the war. Our Allied military veterans who came to Canada received all the same benefits as the Canadian veterans, but they excluded the merchant navy veterans.

We have a lot of old and getting-on Allied veterans in this country who should be given the same benefits as the Canadian merchant seamen are getting. The merchant seamen war veterans would qualify by service in designated dangerous waters in World War I and World War II, and they must all be included on an equal basis.

It now comes down to this: What is fair payment? What's been suggested is $150 a month, pro-rated to $5,000 to $30,000, and also a submission for $20,000 and $40,000 for the POWs.

Do any of you think this is fair? What are your incomes? What's your net worth? What has the quality of your life been relative to mine? How much will your pensions be when your retirement comes?

We must take into consideration your lifetime savings, stocks, bonds, real estate, and interest. Mine equals zero—nothing. I'm sure most successful Canadians have in excess of $200,000 or $300,000.

The Chairman: I wish I had something like the net worth you think I have, Mr. Riddell.

Voices: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: I'm sorry, but I can't resist that. I can't even top up my RRSPs. I'm raising a family, sir.

Mr. Bill Riddell: I'll throw my bills away and take your change.

The Chairman: We're not all Hec Clouthier, you know.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mr. Bill Riddell: Well, rich or poor, money always helps.

An amount of $30,000 was suggested. This would compensate us for 55 years of neglect. If they gave us the $30,000 a year for 55 years, then we would have a couple of hundred thousand dollars.

Yes, if we got that in a lump sum and continued to get the amount until our death, or the death of our spouse, this would be more in line with what others have today. However, you can never make up for the hardship or for the struggle many of us had far below the poverty level. This poverty and all it entails was imposed on us by an uncaring government, a Liberal government, who is now in the driver's seat and in a position to right a wrong that they did some 55 years ago.

• 1630

Not only the Liberals could have done it; many times the Conservatives could have righted this wrong. They just let it ride and went along with discrimination against us.

It's up to you people now, this current Parliament, to restore Canada to the moral side of history. I don't dare say to you now, “Give us what we deserve”, because you might tell me what I deserve, which might be less than nothing, or worse.

We still don't have anything today. We hope this Parliament will make it right. Many people would still deny us everything. They say we were overpaid, and in the way, and we could quit any time. There were all kinds of myths. None of them were true.

If you don't believe it, ask me.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mr. Bill Riddell: Our deep-sea fishermen have also been left out. I see them as war veterans. They were out there in designated dangerous waters. Many of them were killed. U-boats would sneak up on them and shell them and burn them right to the waterline. They didn't take any prisoners. A lot of them died. They should be recognized as war veterans.

It seems most of you are agreed that we have a solid case, a strong case, that we should be compensated. The basis is there. The government did us wrong.

You've heard here from many of the merchant seamen. I'm not familiar with everything they told you. You're here all the time. I'm lucky to be here today, thanks to your kindness.

I suppose you've noticed that a lot of the merchant seamen are not agreeing on everything. We're a very independent bunch—undisciplined, unwashed, or however you want to refer to us—but I can assure you, we're all united on the fact that what we want now is money, money that we feel is owed to us, probably a couple of hundred thousand dollars so that we can buy a nice home, a car, and live decently, which we haven't done for over 55 years.

They don't all agree with me, and I don't agree with all of them. Some of their amounts, to me, are foolish, peanuts. You can't even buy a decent used car for $5,000. That would amount to nothing. But Canada could wash its hands of its obligation and feel it had done its fair duty.

At any rate, I think you all get the idea. What remains now is how much you are going to give us.

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

We certainly have heard a lot of testimony. I personally have heard a lot of different numbers proposed, from zero up to your $200,000. I think that is probably the highest one I've heard. We've also heard just about everything in between.

There are still several other witnesses who want to come to the committee. We will take all the time and give all the witnesses who want to come a fair opportunity to come before the committee. When we've heard all the testimony, we will then make a decision. This committee will recommend the decision it feels it wants to make to the government, and we'll go from there.

I want to turn now to Professor Griezic.

I welcome you, sir. If you'll make your remarks we'll follow with questions.

Professor Foster J.K. Griezic (Adviser/Consultant, Merchant Navy Coalition for Equality): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am very pleased to be before the committee once again.

[Translation]

Thank you for having me. I was last here with Mr. Olmstead four or five months ago.

[English]

This brief is basically going to illustrate and underscore the bases of the recommendations for compensation. It will demonstrate why this class of Canadians, who were post-World War II victims of discrimination, were neglected and rejected by the government and successive governments, and why they merit compensation after more than a half century of exclusion and denial. It will also give an indication as to how this can be done.

• 1635

I should point out very clearly that I'm not a merchant seaman. I'm too young to have been in the war. I have no vested interest in this issue.

The late Tom McGrath and Gordon Olmstead were the two who approached me for assistance. After reading Gordon's research and conducting my own, I realized that the injustice was just too blatant, and had to be looked at. At his request I attended his first presentation before Senator Marshall's subcommittee. It was a beacon. Something was wrong. I became a willing conscript.

Just as a sidelight on Gordon, whose wife, Dorothy, happens to be here today, near the end, I used to talk to Gordon quite frequently on the phone. He had a laptop in his office. Sometimes he would tell me his fingers just wouldn't go on those keys the way he wanted them to. Then he'd ask Dorothy or Jamie, “Why can't you find those tax forms?”

He was concerned about Dorothy, and he wanted to make sure she was going to have an easy time after he was gone. The laptop, which was a toy for him—he liked electronics—he finally couldn't work any more. That was just a couple of days before he actually died.

But he was so concerned about Dorothy. Dorothy wanted to stay in the hospital with him. He simply told her, “No, go home. Get a good sleep. You need it. I have good personnel here, and good nurses.” That was the measure of the man.

To continue, we've already had Bill C-61. After 11 or 12 years, they said it couldn't be done. We've done it. You people have done it. You're to be congratulated for it. You've set history, Canadian history. You'll go into the history books for it, because you've righted a wrong.

The British did it in 1940. They made it retroactive, and recognized them in 1939 because of what was happening to them. Australians and New Zealanders did it immediately after the war, under their own special legislation for their merchant seamen.

Australia, as we may not know—it's not current knowledge—had the same death rate we did, at one in eight. It was very high, very high. Only recently, six years ago, the Australians did what we have just finished doing. That came about partly because of the activity that was taking place here in Canada. The U.S. did it only in 1998, but for the Canadians in this country, it's better late than never.

The final chapter clearly is compensation. Fulfilling the compensation recommendations would wipe clean the slate of the injustice and the mistreatment that existed earlier.

Basically, I'll mention the recommendations. I'll talk briefly about some of the other issues that I think are important—wages, income tax, workmens' compensation or lack thereof, unemployment problems, access to pensions and benefits and so on, and education.

After spending a quarter of a century, I guess almost all my life, in education, I'm a perpetual student.

To continue, I'll also talk about university costing and so on. I'll take a look at and make some suggestions or proposals about how much it would cost this government to look after this issue, and how many people are involved.

I'm not suggesting that these figures are definitive, but they are starting points. It'll give you an idea as to where we can go together.

• 1640

The recommendation I'm starting with is simply the tax-free lump-sum payment, ex gratia, to be paid to the merchant seaman or spouse—you've heard this before—in the amount of $20,000, with an additional $20,000 for merchant navy POWs. That basically is for the government's negligence and discrimination.

As they are finally recognized as war veterans, it's time they are given what they were denied 54 years ago. It's a natural corollary. The compensation would be for that neglect and discrimination, and for lost opportunities.

The government's actions, it should be pointed out, were basically contrary to the UN human rights charter of 1948, which, as you know, was written by a Canadian, and signed by Canada somewhat reluctantly.

The neglect is there even today. I had mentioned to one or two of the MPs what happened in December. There were merchant navy POWs who were being compensated. The government didn't know who they were, but they did mention in the government's press release from both departments, External Affairs and Veterans Affairs, about Hong Kong and Buchenwald. They did not mention the merchant navy POWs. I had to phone and give them the names of the individuals.

There's something wrong with that mentality, that attitude, and it has to stop. If you people can suggest how this can be done, I would be delighted to have those suggestions, because I don't think it's fair to our fellow Canadians to have that kind of treatment.

It's true the government doesn't have full records for income-tested benefits. Therefore, a tax-free lump-sum payment should be made within the confines of Bill C-61, those definitions and those recognitions. We spent a lot of time, almost two years, creating that, so I think it becomes important to try to use that as best we can.

In the same sense, our lump-sum payment proposal makes sense. It's just and it's fair. Pro rata is a little more difficult, and the others that are being bandied about are really quite unfair and unjust, because the military access to post-war rehabilitation benefits were not pro-rated. I'm prepared to admit that there were some exceptions, but those exceptions make the rule.

There are precedents for this lump-sum payment—the interned Japanese Canadians; the Inuit who were forcefully relocated in 1953; and first nations who were moved about as well. These involved government's purposeful actions.

Our second recommendation is that the committee acknowledge that the merchant navy members were under an obligation to serve and that they were part of a service under direct control and discipline—merchant seamen's order; JAG, from the navy; naval service control; admiralty orders and so on.

Third, we recommend that an ex gratia tax-free lump-sum compensation of $5,000 be paid to merchant seamen who were injured or killed during the war and received no compensation, unless it was by enemy action or counteraction, and for health benefits, and VIP denied from the date of introduction of the programs for military veterans. We do have cases, documented cases, where these individuals did not get the benefits.

Four, because of these long-time POWs' ages—the merchant navy is 89—we recommend that the government provide full-time-based pensions for merchant navy POWs.

Now, this creates another problem, I'm aware, and will necessitate omnibus-type legislation. Nonetheless, I think it has to be considered. It was something that was proposed in the 1991 Commons committee report, and we still haven't acted on it. I think that's shameful.

We also recommend that merchant seamen receive an income tax rebate for the income tax paid during the war. This would be very difficult because of having to look up the records and so on, and I admit that, having done considerable research on it. I know there are some, but how extensive it is, I can't in fact say.

The other proposal in relation to that is rather than a tax rebate, given that their average age is 79 and 89, we recommend that the government consider a tax-free existence for the rest of their lives. If their average age is 76 and 81 respectively, they clearly aren't going to last very long, and it might be a nice thing to do.

• 1645

The sixth point is that the compensation for excluding the merchant seamen from the post-war free and paid university education in fact be corrected by the government's establishment of a millennium 2000 university or college scholarship for children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren of wartime merchant seamen.

This has been done already for the first nations military veterans, and the Prime Minister has done it for other Canadians. It would not be a great cost.

Seventh, we recommend that the compensation not in any sense or manner obviate, minimize, or eliminate what little benefits some merchant seamen and their wives may be now receiving. All recipients of pensions, health care, health cards, medical assistance, long-term care, or VIP will continue to receive them, and they will be open to any new applicants even though the department is eroding those benefits, which is rather shameful.

Eighth, we recommend that this committee not establish a subcommittee to investigate the compensation proposals. While this committee has the authority to do so, such a move would simply prolong the issue unduly and would remove your democratic responsibility. I would be delighted to speak to that later on as well.

Nine, we recommend that this committee contact Veterans Affairs Canada to ensure that track II discussions be resumed as soon as possible when you people come through with your report—in other words, rather than waiting 150 days after the report comes down. We don't have the time. Each month 13 die, and will be missing something.

I think there is no sense going through this. You've had enough of the history. We've talked about the merchant seamen issues for the past five or six months and for the eleven or twelve years since I've been involved with it.

What I would like to do now is simply look at the efforts they've contributed—I call it a double contribution—to the war effort, such as the lower wages.

I'm not going to read about the lower wages other than to point out that no one, to this point, has been able to refute in the same fashion Gordon Olmstead's chart constructed with regard to the lower wages. It's clear in the National Defence records, in the merchant seamen articles, and in the ships' logs that the wages were less.

We have cases of naval personnel who simply left the merchant navy and went and joined the navy, for two reasons—it was safer and it paid more. The loss ratio indicates that as well as the wages paid.

You can look at the government records from a number of years—1942, 1943, 1944. I'd be delighted to send the researchers, and provide them with the RG-24s and RG-27s to document this stuff.

In May 1944, Arthur Randles, the merchant seaman director, simply wrote to the Parks Shipping company and said, look, live up to the contract you guys just signed; otherwise, these guys are not going to sail.

I think it is very important to understand that those wages were not the same.

You have as well the issue about the war bonus. There was a 10% war bonus, but because you were a young kid, 16 or under—like the young Billie Riddell here—you got half that war bonus rather than the full war bonus. That was perfectly accepted. So there was double discrimination there.

• 1650

I've suggested too that there are in fact some documents that can prove conclusively once again that even with the war bonus, the wages were less.

My next point is the income tax. This is a little more difficult, except it did exist. It's documented clearly. There are newspaper articles and letters to the editor, and it's talked about in the House of Commons debates that members of the merchant navy were paying income tax and military personnel weren't.

Some merchant seamen have retained their pay slips, which I have photocopied and given to the department. So that's been documented. I've high-ended the amounts here purposefully—perhaps wrongly, but purposefully—to give an indication as to what in fact was there. I've given you a list of the actual percentages of income tax collected.

There's a lack of workmens' compensation. There were fatal accidents and chronic complaints about not having compensation. It's really sad, because they couldn't go to military hospitals. These people were virtually responsible for their own health even though they were under government discipline and control.

There's one other point that I think is really significant. It was not until 1943 that the Department of Transport put together an official card to send to the families of the deceased when they were killed.

John Milmine, a 16-year-old kid out of Verdun, Quebec, on his first ship, the Carolus, going from Montreal, on September 2, 1942, was killed when the ship was torpedoed and sunk. His parents never heard from the government about their loss. There were no death benefits, and there was no confirmation of death, because it was a year before the means of informing them was introduced.

The post-war neglect and exclusion—the abuse, the denigration, the unwanted nature demonstrated by the government—is again quite clearly evidenced. One of the best ones is in the unemployment area. It's funny, because with the unemployment situation, it became institutionalized. There is no question about that at all.

Perhaps I can hit on two points here. First, the ships that were privatized were being sold at a discount of 25%. The advertisement that went out to the Greek buyers and so on simply stated that they were getting this 25% discount because the ships were poorly constructed. They didn't tell the merchant seamen during the war, but after the war they were using this as a means of getting rid of their ships.

C.D. Howe admitted there would be only 4,000 jobs for the 12,000. By 1947 there were only 135 ships and 7,000 seamen. A year later, in 1948, there were less than 4,000 seamen, and six years later, it had plummeted to 20 ships and less than 1,000 people, which was worse than in 1939.

Captain Brand complained about the maritime commission report. He wrote it, but it was revised. He said it was used for political rather than factual use.

The privatization simply brought on flags of convenience. There were no jobs, which meant poor wages, poor working conditions, and so on. These guys had just gone through improving their situation. The unemployment is reported in the newspapers and in the House of Commons.

On September 26, 1946, west coast merchant seamen formed the Merchant Marine Rehabilitation Society to try to do something for merchant seamen. People couldn't get jobs.

• 1655

They interviewed Earl Jacobson, a far east Japanese POW who came to Canada and returned in U.S. army khaki clothes to Vancouver. He went to the “manning pool” and tried to get a job. Mind you, he'd lost 60 pounds. He only weighed 100 pounds when he returned. The manning pool simply said, no, they couldn't give him a job. The government wouldn't give him a job either. They wouldn't look after him in a hospital or care for him—nothing.

How about the training schools that were set up? Well, in 1947 they were closing down the ones they'd had during the war. The new training schools were only for—and I quote—“a limited number”. That's right in the government documents.

By 1948 the government acknowledged the following: “few...had any training or experience that would enable them to earn a livelihood on land.” That same year there was the declaration of rights about governments providing for jobs and education.

The Chairman: Foster, I'm really sorry to interject, but I'm going to encourage you, if you can, to come to your conclusion. You're giving some very interesting anecdotal evidence, but it's evidence that the committee has heard quite a bit of.

I just want to ensure that the members have the chance for a full round of first questioning and then time for second questions.

If you could conclude your remarks in five, we would be able to accomplish that.

Prof. Foster Griezic: If five minutes is what you can give me, Mr. Chairman, I will conclude in five.

The next point is the access to the military benefits. When this was argued, again there was opposition to their being cared for. C.D. Howe in particular was the strongest opponent of that.

The problem was, basically the merchant seamen fell between the cracks. Veterans Affairs didn't want them. Transport didn't want them. Labour didn't want them. They had no minister to speak for them, and that really was a problem.

They formed their own organizations, but that wasn't enough. When people are unemployed and they have the opportunity to get a government job, they can certainly do that and enjoy the fruits of that employment rather than simply collect unemployment, as some of the merchant seamen had to do.

There came further problems as they tried to improve their situation. Those further problems developed in spite of a groundswell of support for the merchant navy after the war, and its retention. It came from companies such as Eaton's, Western Bridge and Steel, and Beaver Lumber. Nonetheless, the government simply refused to do anything to assist.

With regard to post-secondary education, I don't know how you put a cost on this, but they were purposefully excluded from this avenue of improving themselves. Becoming leaders of business, professional, and public life for the years ahead were reserved for the military. They got free and paid university education.

I've listed some names of individuals who succeeded on their own, basically, and who I've had the occasion to actually interview and meet. Again, I've given 1955 as a benchmark, which is virtually ten years after, but according to documents I have and that we've looked up, there are naval personnel getting $225 per month to go to university. It's family, I admit, but merchant seamen got nothing.

In terms of the merchant seamen's vocational education, only 282 out of 12,000 were permitted in the course. That's 2%.

[Translation]

I clearly recall Mr. Lang mentioning 10 per cent. It's not 10 per cent, but rather 2 per cent.

[English]

With regard to the pension benefits, they're really rather sad. As has been documented, once again, the pension numbers show that by 1947, 3% were getting pensions, and the increase was minuscule.

I'd like to cite the case of Jim Kelley, who lost his foot, or Sam McGladdery, who was in training with the navy and had to have part of his foot amputated. Finally, in 1994 they ended up getting $84 a month in compensation, even though they'd been submitting applications for compensation years before.

• 1700

With regard to the costing and the numbers involved, to me, these can be rationalized. We do know the press has said $100 million. We do know the minister has said in the House of Commons $88 million. We do know the Canada Gazette has said $82 million for five years.

Where it went is another question. It's always been difficult to get information from them. We think, though, there is money there that could be used. Now, it's true it could have been used for other programs or simply returned to Treasury Board.

The situation, I think, is that the compensation package we proposed of the $20,000, $20,000, and $5,000 is cost-effective for the government. What the military has received was front-end-loaded. Now it's time for the merchant seamen to make it equitable.

The total cost for the $20,000 and $20,000, for the 2,100 merchant seamen who are alive, including spouses, would cost between approximately $52 million and $62 million. For the additional amount for the POWs—there are approximately 30 of those—it would be $800,000. The $5,000 extra for merchant seamen injured would cost approximately $2.5 million, and then you would throw in the $1 million millennium university or college scholarship.

That totals, ladies and gentlemen, $56.3 million, high-ended at $66.3 million. To me, this is a very reasonable and modest request.

As to the numbers, recipients would be the wartime merchant seamen and women or spouses as defined by Bill C-61.

The formula for arriving at the amounts is based primarily on the gross amount owed to the merchant seamen during the war. Now, it's difficult to say with absolute certainty how much it costs to pay these people back. The figures I have used are simply estimates from other presentations I've given to the department and to this committee.

I think it's underscored by Tom Brooks in the statistics contained in his fine brief. Even Mr. Chatterton's November 26, 1998, brief noted the estimates.

To close, there may be, as I say, 2,100 who are around, but they're going quickly. They merit the compensation. They're part of a marginalized and dispossessed class, as indicated by the large number who are receiving means-tested benefits.

They've waited, having missed opportunities, a half century for justice. You have the opportunity and obligation to institute it. Canadians of all walks of life will applaud your action as you remove our collective shame. We ask humbly, and with justice and pride, that you do it now, before it's too late.

I would be pleased to take any questions.

The Chairman: Thank you, Professor Griezic.

Before I go to a round of questions, I want to acknowledge the presence of Mrs. Olmstead and to extend her and her family the deep sympathies of the SCONDVA committee, especially those of us who had the opportunity to travel and spend some time with Mr. Olmstead, who put so much time into this issue. I feel we certainly should acknowledge Mrs. Olmstead's presence and extend our sympathies.

It's good to see you here today, Ma'am.

I want to go to the first round of 10-minute questions, starting with Mr. Goldring of the Reform Party.

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

I too wish to add my condolences to Mrs. Olmstead and would make the comment that Bill C-61 reflects a lot of Gordon's good work over the years.

• 1705

Thank you for your presentations, Mr. Griezic and Mr. Riddell.

I today want to talk a bit about lost opportunities, what this means, and what this has affected. We had a submission here by Captain Brooks, who identified a number of approximately $100,000 in terms of what this really has meant. When we channel through education and land grants and loans for businesses and grants for businesses, I really don't feel Mr. Riddell is that far off when he identifies some $200,000.

We saw a lot of chuckles from other members here, too, but if we really looked at the opportunities your family...and not just you, but also your brothers and sisters. We're talking about intergenerations here. We're talking about since the war to this date. We're not talking about people particularly around the room but about how your family has been disadvantaged over this number of years, the amount you could pass on to your children and your children's children, and the advantage of you having a university education or a grant or a loan for a business that would give you an opportunity, at square one, from leaving the war, that you would be able to pass down intergenerationally to this date. I think $200,000 might be calling it a little bit soft on its own.

I wanted to make that very clear, because I think we have to have an understanding here that there are huge benefits obtained from one single university education, benefits passed along, from schooling in 1948 or 1949, to your family, your children's family, and your children's children's family.

I'd like to ask you, Mr. Riddell, to just expand on that. Am I correct that this really is a substantial contribution to your family's lifestyle?

Mr. Bill Riddell: I think so. If I would have had the same opportunities other people had.... With no money, I couldn't take advantage of the opportunities I saw. I perhaps would have turned out to be very wealthy today, but we'll never know.

You can very well say, look, it's just as well we didn't give him anything; look at him, he's a dummy, and he would have blown it anyway.

The bottom line is, we'll never know. I never had the opportunity to do anything.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Yes.

Certainly it's been well identified that a university education, or some form of family advantage, family assistance, helps catapult you in your career, and can accelerate careers.

Maybe a lot of the people at this table here have had that advantage throughout their years, but this was missing for the veterans from the merchant navy.

I wonder if Mr. Griezic could comment on that in terms of the comments we had from other applicants that this $100,000 and $200,000 may be minimal amounts—and it would be very difficult to calculate what it would be, or could be, or might be—but these are reasonable, low-ball, low-end estimates.

Would you comment on that, Mr. Griezic?

Prof. Foster Griezic: If you take a look at the income of someone who has been professionally trained and what they're making after having been at university and so on, and even today, if you could transpose or take it back to 40 or 50 years ago, the discrepancy in the income is incredibly vast. It's two separate worlds, really.

What I think we have to deal with here is the reality of what we can expect from the government as we make our proposals. It may be, as Bill says, that $100,000 or $200,000 isn't enough. I think in many ways it's not, because of what they had suffered for all those years. But then you have to put it in the context of the reality of what the government has, what the taxpayers can live with at this point.

• 1710

At this point, we—and you'll have to excuse me for using the collective “we”, by which I mean the coalition and merchant seamen—have agreed to $20,000. There is unity on it.

To me, $20,000 is not enough. In the university sphere, you will see someone coming out and immediately making, right out of university, $40,000 a year. It makes that $20,000 look like a mere pittance.

Mr. Peter Goldring: In your mind, then, what went wrong from the beginning? Clearly the merchant navy did front-line duty. They were in the theatre of war. They suffered casualties that were higher than the other three services. They suffered prisoner of war camps.

In your mind, did they suffer outright discrimination? Was there any connection in this discrimination with the red scare, McCarthyism, or unionism? Did that have some kind of effect? Why did they not gain acceptance from the early years? Why did it take until 1992 to get some form of recognition, even though it didn't cover all of your concerns? What outstanding or other factors affected it such that they were discriminated so at the early stages?

Prof. Foster Griezic: A number of things are involved. The biggest one is the red scare and the unionization. The critical year is 1948. As we know, that's when Russia went into Czechoslovakia. The world was turning upside down. There was a fear in the western community that the Russians were going to take over and Communism was going to take over.

It's not just in Europe. You have it happening in other parts of the world as well, including the far east and Vietnam. So there really is a fear there.

The fact is, they were unionized, and they were successful as unions. You have to remember that. A successful union is perceived by business—and I don't think this is saying anything out of school—as a threat to the profitability of a corporation. I mean, it's been proven that this is not the case, but we're talking about images and attitudes and mythology. That was critical.

Some other interesting phenomena come up. Again, as a researcher, I wish I could put my finger on this, but it's always mystified me that people like J.V. Clyne, who was head of the Canadian Maritime Commission, and Mr. Chevrier, the Minister of Transport, destroyed their records.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Would you say, then—again, it's difficult to put your finger on it—that something definitely went on in those early years, that it was an act of discrimination that held back this recognition all these years, until 1992 and until now, where we have to update the records on it?

Once again, asking for this amount of money for compensation is more symbolic. It's not meant to fully compensate—I don't think we ever can—but it's meant to be a strong symbol to the 2,000-plus surviving merchant navy veterans that there has been a wrong and it is now being addressed.

Would that be sufficient to say?

The Chairman: Can you make a very brief response, please? We're just about out of time.

Prof. Foster Griezic: I think it certainly is symbolic. You certainly can get auditors to take a look at it and come up with different figures. Because of how they were treated....

There is documentation that indicates there was this fear of Communists. There's no question about that at all. They were tarred with this brush and they suffered for it, through no fault of their own.

The symbolism of giving them a payment of $20,000 each, and the additional $20,000 to the POWs.... Clearly it should be done, yes.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: You have ten minutes, Mr. Laurin.

• 1715

Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): In your brief, Professor, you state that merchant seamen were excluded from the Veterans Independence Program in 1988 and that in 1990, the Legion supported their inclusion in the program.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Could you explain this to me?

Prof. Foster Griezic: I'll try to, but I'm not a member of the Legion. In 1988, the government amended the rules to exclude merchant seamen from the VIP program. However, at its annual meeting in Vancouver in 1990, the Legion passed a resolution recommending that merchant seamen be included. In my opinion, this came about as a result of efforts by people like Mr. Olmstead, Mr. Riddell and myself to convince the government to include merchant seamen in the program.

Mr. René Laurin: Could you explain the Veterans Independence Program to me?

Prof. Foster Griezic: The VIP program enables veterans to live at home, rather than in the hospital. People come to their home to do repairs and so forth and a nurse provides care to those who are ill. It's an expensive proposition to keep veterans hospitalized. They are much better off at home and it costs a lot less.

Mr. René Laurin: Then the program focuses on home care. It was ten years ahead of its time.

Another things intrigues me a lot. I agree with the compensation recommendations, but the amount is open to discussion. I do have some questions about your proposal to provide compensation to merchant seamen for post-secondary studies never undertaken because they didn't have the money at the time.

Free tuition for children, which is a reality at the primary and secondary levels, and to some extent at the college, but not at the university level, is based on the principle that education is a national resource which benefits all citizens. It's normal for the nation to pay part of the costs because people who are better educated will make a greater contribution to the nation's economy.

If the state were to provide compensation today to individuals for university studies that we never undertaken, how can it expect to reap the benefits, given that these individuals won't be going back to school? In reality, it would be compensating them for something they missed out on personally. The state as such wouldn't reap any kind of benefit. The individual would be compensated, but what about the state?

Secondly, it's a myth to say that some people have received a free education. Quebec students who earn a university degree are graduating with an average debt of $22,000. In other provinces, the average student debt load is $40,000. That's not news to you, because you're a university professor. You know full well that students receive loans, not gifts, and that these loans have to be repaid. While some scholarships are awarded, for the most part they are provided by private organizations. Exceptionally, the government does award some scholarships. However, equity isn't an issue, because those who do get loans must pay them back.

• 1720

Mr. Riddell argues that he was deprived of the opportunity of earning a university education and that he would likely have become wealthy had he had the chance. He is now claiming between $100,000 and $200,000 in compensation and says that's entirely reasonable. I quite agree with him. Knowing Mr. Riddell as I do and his communication skills, he probably could have become the President of the Royal Bank. Therefore, $100,000 to $200,000 is surely not enough, since the President of the Royal Bank is a millionaire. In Mr. Riddell's case, he probably could have achieved all of that. The problem I have is when we apply the same reasoning to all of the other former merchant seamen. If all of them had had the ability to rise to the rank of Royal Bank president, then it would indeed be difficult to calculate the appropriate compensation, but that's not in fact the case.

You stated that a university graduate earned $40,000. Professor, I could introduce you to several people who, after graduating, weren't able to find a job for a year, or even two, and when they did, their annual salary was $23,000 or $25,000. Not all graduates earn $40,000.

Arguments of this nature are truly arbitrary. We may decide on an amount that we think is fair, but merchant seamen may think otherwise. Under the circumstances, we'll never come up with an amount based on scientific data. One day, we'll have to agree on an arbitrary figure, one that will have to be amenable to the majority of taxpayers who will foot the bill. Merchant seamen aren't getting a gift from the government, but from the taxpayers, that is from all Canadians. We are merely their representatives. What if we were asking for $20,000 in compensation to be awarded to 30 million Canadians? The question would then be: Have I done enough for my country to deserve this?

Therefore, I do have some reservations.

Prof. Foster Griezic: I understand what you're saying, Mr. Laurin, but I do have a problem, one that I'll try to explain to you.

As I see it, a merchant seaman is someone who has worked hard for the government. Consider the case of two individuals, one in the miliary, and one in the merchant navy. The one in the military was given the opportunity to pursue a university education in his chosen field. He may not have become the president of a large corporation, but maybe he became a lawyer or a doctor.

Mr. René Laurin: He had to study and write exams.

Prof. Foster Griezic: That's right, and the same holds true today, but nevertheless, he had the opportunity to attend university. The government extended a helping hand to these individuals, but not to merchant seamen.

Mr. René Laurin: I understand that.

Prof. Foster Griezic: They were treated unfairly. You're talking about people attending university today. It's not the same thing. They have a choice, whereas Mr. Riddell enlisted in the merchant navy at the age of 15 and stayed in three or four years. When the war ended, the government thanked him very much and then sent him on his way. What was he to do? He couldn't go to school because he needed to find a job.

Another case in point is Mr. Arsenault. I asked him to come and testify before the committee, but because he was ill, he couldn't make it. He lives in Terrebonne. He said he was truly fortunate because his parents were prepared to do everything for him. Mr. Arsenault's boat was torpedoed. He made a success of his life, with the help of his parents and no thanks to the Canadian government.

• 1725

This is an entirely different matter. Members of the merchant navy and the military served equally in the war. One group received government assistance, particularly for education, while the other received nothing.

[English]

The Chairman: Merci.

Mr. Wood, for 10 minutes.

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

Professor Griezic, I'm a little worried about the totals that are being discussed here. For your numbers on page 15 we're looking at half a billion dollars when we add your income tax repayment to the compensation plan. When Mr. Chadderton was here last week, he stated that there are about eight other civilian groups that are hoping for similar compensation—which is a total of about 2,000 people, I believe. So we're talking about huge payments and possibly a precedent that could be extended to other government departments. That said, I want to return to your figures, sir.

You state that in regard to the income tax repayment you want these funds repaid for all 12,000 seamen. This raised a couple of questions for me. First, what if these men filled out their tax returns at the end of each year during the war and got some money—or at least a portion—as a refund? If that's the case, then, they would be getting a second refund 55 years later. Do you have any stats on that?

Prof. Foster Griezic: No, I admit I don't.

Mr. Wood, I should clarify this. These things that I put in for the income tax, along with some of the suggestions, are plausible arguments to make in view of what happened with them. Our bottom line here, if I can state it in its context, is basically the payment of an additional $20,000 and the $5,000. That's why, when we came up with that amount on the previous page, we're talking about $62 million or $66 million as we go through that list. If we include the other, you're right. Those are, as I perceive them, and as the coalition and others perceive them.... When they were first put together, it was to illustrate basically what had happened to the merchant marine. Those are all documented cases where, in fact, this is what happened with the merchant marine as they interacted with the government during the war.

In other words, what I'm suggesting here is that they could request such amounts and returns. There are all kinds of complexities involved. I don't deny that at all. What the bottom line becomes is simply that we are aware of those and we're not asking for those; what we're looking at is here.

Mr. Bob Wood: Well, you are asking for them.

Prof. Foster Griezic: The others that have been mentioned—

The Chairman: Professor, there are 10 minutes per questioner, and if you use all the time in the answer.... I'm going to have to go back to Mr. Wood.

Mr. Bob Wood: But you're still asking for tax refunds. Now, why do you propose to compensate only the living seaman and the spouses, with retroactive compensation? You talk about a tax refund. Mr. Chadderton was here and stated that these payments should go to the estate of the deceased mariner. Your brief proposes scholarships for the children of the seamen. I'm worried that maybe in some cases we're talking about compensating only the survivors and spouses and that in other cases we face proposals that deal with the estate and the surviving relatives of these veterans. In both cases, these are really large numbers. I'd just like to have your comments on this, because, Professor Griezic, I think we need you to be precise.

Prof. Foster Griezic: I'm trying to be as precise as I can.

As we take a look at this, you'll notice that on page 2 I had suggested that the estates.... We hadn't included the estates, and if we did, we would simply consider backdating it to 1997, because that was the first year that the government actually sat down and designated to us that they were prepared to talk legislation and compensation, the track one and the track two. Remember: they contacted us to talk about that and they did the dividing. So when that came up, that seemed to us like a reasonable date to use as a starting point.

• 1730

The estate as well, I think...and those people outside the estate were hoping, with the millennium scholarship as an example, that their children and grandchildren could take good advantage of that. It certainly wouldn't be what the others would be receiving, but it's the closest we could come to an approximate, and there may be better ones. Believe me, Mr. Wood, we're open to proposals and suggestions.

Mr. Bob Wood: Thank you.

The Chairman: Five minutes, Mr. Wood.

Mr. Bob Wood: The other big issue that we have to tackle, Professor Griezic, is the attitude of our Allies to their merchant seamen. It has been repeated a number of times that Britain covered their merchant seamen in veterans' legislation almost from the outset of World War II. This may be true, but are the British benefits comparable to those received by Canadian veterans? I frequently receive requests from British veterans living in Canada who want access to Canadian veterans' benefits because they are better than those in Britain.

Now, it's fine to say that Britain recognized and gave benefits to their merchant navy, but we need to know what the nature of these benefits was and what it is today. Can you address that? Or maybe we should have witnesses in here who could address this accurately.

Prof. Foster Griezic: I can make two suggestions in that regard. I do know that Veterans Affairs has been—and it has happened, because I've been involved in it—collating what benefits various countries have under the legislation that exists. I pointed them to some stuff that took place immediately after the war and during the war. If I can just revert to the British system, though, as an example, the Brits provided—

Mr. Bob Wood: I want to get some more questions in, and I think you're just dragging it out. But that's all right.

Prof. Foster Griezic: —university education for their merchant seamen after the war.

Mr. Bob Wood: I know.

Prof. Foster Griezic: It's true that there are differences. Some of the Brits say they can get better stuff here. On the other hand, if you go to Norway, you can get even better benefits there.

Mr. Bob Wood: Okay.

A number of our witnesses, sir, have also stated that our other Allies, some of which you have mentioned—the United States, Australia and New Zealand—have recognized their merchant navy and have suggested that they have access to full veterans' benefits. Canada, as you know, has been in the same position since 1992, when the Conservative government brought forward their bill. We have, kind of, brought it another step forward, as you were mentioning, with Bill C-61. But in 1992, there was no retroactivity mentioned, and correct me if I'm wrong, but my colleague, Mr. Proud, at one time, I think, asked Mr. Chadderton that question. I think Mr. Chadderton's answer was that if it had been in the bill in 1992, it would not have passed. It's seven years later and now we're back.

My understanding is that our benefits are on approximately the same footing as those of the other countries. For instance, what benefits did the United States give its merchant navy veterans that Canada did not? What benefits did the Australian government give its merchant navy veterans that Canada did not? For instance, which benefits did the New Zealand people give their merchant navy veterans that Canada did not? In other words, what exactly did the Canadian merchant navy not get that you know their Allied shipmates did get?

Prof. Foster Griezic: Number one is education. I can start there, and very simply.... Can I take the Australian case?

Mr. Bob Wood: Take any case you want.

Prof. Foster Griezic: Okay. Basically they got.... As you're using the term “veterans”, I'm having difficulty discriminating between military veterans—

Mr. Bob Wood: I'm talking about merchant navy veterans.

Prof. Foster Griezic: Okay, then, merchant navy veterans.... If you take a look at Great Britain, they got the same. If you take a look at Australia, they got the same. If you take a look at New Zealand, they got the same. In the United States, they didn't get the same; changes were made in 1988. The change that took place in Australia was simply that the Australians decided that those Canadians were actually right, that they should be under the same legislation as the veterans. So they simply put them under it and got rid of the legislation that designated them as merchant seaman. But they got the same benefits prior to going under that legislation. Canada has been the nation that has been lax.

The Chairman: One minute, Mr. Wood.

• 1735

Mr. Bob Wood: Okay.

In your statement, you draw some comparisons between the merchant navy veterans and other groups. You use these as an example of the government compensating people for an injustice. I just wonder if this is a fair comparison, because some of the groups mentioned suffered more or less the same treatment and can be easily identified. Merchant seamen, I think, are a more diverse group. That's what we've found. Some members served on only a few voyages, some for six full years, and some faced greater perils or longer incarceration than others. Clearly, individual conditions varied. Can you accurately make the case that they therefore all deserve the same compensation?

Prof. Foster Griezic: Yes, I think I can. May I answer your question with a question?

Mr. Bob Wood: You're the witness.

Prof. Foster Griezic: That's fine, then, if I can have the right to do that.

Can you tell me the difference between that 16-year-old kid who was on his first voyage—like the one that I mentioned in my presentation, John Milmine—and who, in September 1942, was killed serving his country, and a guy who got killed in 1945, in May, near the end of the war, a guy who had only joined up in December 1944? What's the difference?

The Chairman: I'm sorry—

Prof. Foster Griezic: What's the difference?

The Chairman: —but I'm going to have to go to Mr. Earle of the NDP for 10 minutes.

Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't think I'll require the full 10 minutes.

I can truthfully say, first of all, that I'd also like to extend my sympathies to Mrs. Olmstead, to commend both her and her husband for the amount of work they've done on this issue, and to assure them that we certainly support in principle exactly what they are trying to achieve: justice for the merchant navy.

I guess the difficulty for everybody lies in trying to nail down an amount that can really do justice to the situation, because we know that in reality there's no dollar amount that would compensate for the injustice that has been done. So the reality, I guess, is to try to come up with something that's very practical and acceptable to everyone in order to kind of close off this chapter of injustice.

We've heard different amounts from various witnesses, ranging anywhere from $5,000 right through to the $200,000 that we've heard today. In the final analysis, the reality is this: when an amount has been determined, is there something that everybody can pretty much agree on as a fair or symbolic representation of the settling of this injustice? We are consistently somewhere around $20,000 to $30,000 as an amount that would be reasonable.

But would the people who've recommended the $200,000 and the $100,000 feel comfortable at the end of this if an amount that was settled on is closer to the proposals that have been put forward by Mr. Griezic? Or would we find that at the end of the day we are still faced with people saying they were not dealt with fairly?

The bottom line is this: if we support the idea that something has to be paid, this committee is going to have to come up with something. But I think we want to come up with something that's hopefully going to, at the end of the day, satisfy the majority of people on this issue.

I guess my question is more to Mr. Riddell, who put forth the $200,000 figure. I know that in fairness, as has been indicated by Mr. Goldring, perhaps one could justify going to that amount, but the reality is that I doubt very strongly that the government is going to end up paying $200,000 to all the merchant seamen who suffered this injustice. So in reality, what amount do you feel would satisfy this issue? I suppose I'd open that for discussion.

Mr. Bill Riddell: A couple of hundred thousand dollars.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Okay.

Mr. Bill Riddell: Mr. Laurin says, well, what benefit is that to the country? For all of you here, your quality of life today is what we paid for 55 years ago. Where would you be today? Would you have this quality of life if we had all stayed home, if we hadn't done the right thing 60 years ago? I did the right thing. It was considered to be the right thing for our country, for our Allied side, but it didn't turn out to be the right thing for me. I should have stayed home, stayed in school, and become rich like some of you.

• 1740

The Chairman: But $200,000 is your answer, though, Mr. Riddell, isn't it?

Mr. Bill Riddell: Sure.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Earle.

Mr. Gordon Earle: For Mr. Griezic, it's the same question. You've given a fair amount of information in your brief in terms of different scenarios, but the bottom line for you would be...?

Prof. Foster Griezic: The bottom line, as I tried to indicate before to Mr. Wood, is basically to.... We have unanimity—I'm almost frightened to use the term—amongst the merchant navy associations and groups in regard to the fact that, number one, it's not enough, but they are prepared to accept $20,000, an additional $20,000, and $5,000. We seem to have the support of the large veterans' organizations, which I'm absolutely delighted to learn of, support from Mr. Chadderton of the War Amps and the NCVA—I don't want to be speaking for him, but that's my understanding—and the same thing from the Legion.

I'm not sure about the ANAF vets. We haven't contacted them yet, but they have said that they are prepared to go along with something. I've done a critique of their proposal to you people, which I'm going to be leaving with the researchers and Mr. O'Brien, and which you can then circulate. But my understanding is that they would be satisfied.... Satisfied is perhaps not the correct term. My understanding is that they would be “willing” to accept that amount.

The Chairman: All right.

Thank you, Mr. Earle.

Mr. Price, from the Progressive Conservative Party.

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'll also express my condolences to Mrs. Olmstead. I'm sure that the work Mr. Olmstead has done won't have been done in vain. I think we're getting to a point now....

In the interests of time, I'll ask a series of questions. First of all, we have come as far as Bill C-61 now. Do you feel that the merchant navy veterans are happy with that part of it so far?

Second, throughout your presentation, you've given us the list of compensations, which comes to between $53 million and $66 million. Is this the coalition now? You said just a minute ago that a whole series of groups are more or less unanimous on it. If we look at this figure, the bottom figure, are we looking at a settlement, once and for all? Would we be at the bottom line?

Third, have you discussed this with Mr. Chadderton's proposed study group, which he mentioned last week? Would you be in favour of it and the time schedule that he had laid out, which I think was 30 days?

Those are my questions.

Prof. Foster Griezic: Again, I don't want to be speaking for Mr. Chadderton, because he does a very eloquent job of doing it himself.

Mr. David Price: I understand. Have you talked to him about it?

Prof. Foster Griezic: Yes, there have been discussions. I didn't happen to be present today when they were taking place, but my understanding, once again, is that there isn't a need for a subcommittee to be formed.

My concern about a subcommittee is that, number one, it's too lengthy a process—

Mr. David Price: That's why I mentioned the 30—

Prof. Foster Griezic: —even if we put a time constraint on it, because if you do that, you have a time constraint, then we have another 150 days, and that's another...we would be going on and on. You know, Mr. Price, I've been doing this for 12—

Mr. Bill Riddell: A long time.

Prof. Foster Griezic: For a long time.... I'd like to see a conclusion. It's not for me, believe me. It's for those guys, like Bill. They need it. What's happening now is that the government is cutting back. The “near-recipients” are no longer going to be there. Someone who was once sent over is not going to get anything, and that's what's in place for these people, who need something now. They're at the age that their standard of living, their quality of life, needs this amount of money. They need it to help them, because they don't have many more years—

Mr. Bill Riddell: Yes.

Prof. Foster Griezic: —and the $20,000 is going to do it.

With respect to the subcommittee, I just don't see any need for it. There are all sorts of other factors that come into play. There's no question that we're going to have to talk to the Departments of Finance, Justice, and Veterans Affairs. That's understood, but it's going to happen even if you people decide to—

• 1745

Mr. David Price: So this is your bottom-line proposal.

Prof. Foster Griezic: Again, I wouldn't want to say that you can't go to $66.4 million on the thing. There has to be some latitude.

Mr. David Price: Okay.

As far as Bill C-61 is concerned, the rest of it, and the comfort level there, what's the feeling?

Prof. Foster Griezic: I'm certainly happy with it. Bill participated in the creation of it. Mr. Olmstead did an incredible amount of work. There were Tom Brooks, Bill Bruce, Muriel MacDonald.... The feedback we've been getting from merchant seamen and master mariners is that they're quite happy, because finally history has been....

Mr. David Price: Recognition.

Prof. Foster Griezic: That's right.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Price.

As well, I just might add, in response to your question, just to refresh all members' minds, that with respect to Bill C-61, we had quite an expression of support for it from the veterans' groups, including the merchant mariners and the various organizations of the merchant mariners. I believe pretty much everyone who wrote said that they fully supported the bill as long as we were going to deal with the issue—as we are. Based on the input to me as chair, there was a very high level of support for the bill.

Mr. David Price: I was just wondering, Mr. Chairman, how the sense of the comfort level out there was after it—

The Chairman: How it filtered down...? I understand your question, but I just thought I'd refresh our minds on that part, though.

We'll go to a second round of questions now, with five minutes for each questioner this time, starting with Mr. Goldring.

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

Mr. Griezic, there was a comment just a little earlier in regard to a concern about other groups and organizations also laying claim to compensation. We've seen other groups and organizations that have received forms of compensation too, like the Japanese Canadians, the aboriginal residential schools...and there will probably be more in the future.

But I'd like your opinion on how this is relevant to this case. In my mind, to my way of looking at it, each issue would stand on its own and on its own merits, and obviously it is my strong feeling that the merchant navy veterans' claim here stands well on its own. There should not be consideration of how this may affect other groups and organizations, because each situation is entirely different. Could you comment on that? What is your feeling?

Prof. Foster Griezic: You're absolutely right. Every case is unique. There is no question about it. I would be a very inadequate historian if I didn't recognize that fact. In history, there is no such thing as a repetition.

Mr. Peter Goldring: So there could be more claims, other groups...? It's up to the conscience of the government and the good judgment of the government as to whether they're valid.

Prof. Foster Griezic: Well, what I think we have to consider Mr. Goldring, as I look at this issue.... There may well be other cases that are valid as they make their claims. Those cases are going to have to do the kind of research that Gordon did.

Mr. Peter Goldring: They would have to stand on their own, then.

Prof. Foster Griezic: That's right. Absolutely.

Mr. Peter Goldring: So your proposal here, which looks like a “20-20” proposal, with $20,000 for the veterans and $20,000 for the POWs—

Prof. Foster Griezic: No. It's an additional $20,000.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Yes. This really has basic support—for something like this—from most veterans' groups and from Mr. Chadderton's organization, and it has good support from the veterans' groups and organizations in regard to addressing this concern. I'm sure this would be also considered symbolic support, because I'm sure there are a lot who agree with Mr. Riddell that it could very well be very much more. But this 20-20 type of proposal that is here on this sheet seems to be accepted by a lot of the veterans' groups and organizations as a symbolic method. Could you comment on that?

• 1750

Prof. Foster Griezic: Again, it sets a precedent, in a sense, but it's not a precedent—despite that contradiction. The fact is, each issue as it comes up is going to have to stand on its own. People are going to have to do the research and they're going to have to document and prove what their cases are. With respect to the symbolic amounts of $20,000, $20,000, and $5,000, as I look at it, if I were a businessman, it's a bargain for the government, in view of what's happened in the past and where these people are now living.

The other thing that we have to remember with that money that goes out—that $20,000, $20,000, and $5,000—is that, as we all know, it is going to contribute to stimulating the economy. Those people are not going to just simply sit on it. They're going to be making use of it to better their lives, and that's what it's about.

Mr. Peter Goldring: There seems to be some concentration on whether this is for education and that this is much more than simply education; it's the multitude of benefits that the regular forces had, from home grants to loans to business loans. It has to do with much more than just simply education, although the access to education is a very important one.

Prof. Foster Griezic: Definitely.

The Chairman: All right. Thank you, Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Proud.

Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a couple of short questions.

First of all, I want to express my condolences to Mrs. Olmstead. She wasn't here the other day when I made this speech. I first met Gordon back in 1991-92, when Bill C-84 was uppermost in our minds. I was in opposition at that time. He and Bill Riddell and others came to my office on numerous occasions, and I always respected him. He has done a tremendous job for the veterans, the merchant seamen, and as I go back to Bill C-84, the big issues of that day were the terms “merchant seaman veteran” or “veteran” and “the high seas and dangerous waters” and things like this. Today we have Bill C-61 and now we're into this retroactive compensation.

My question to you, Mr. Griezic, is about the $20,000 for the merchant seamen plus $20,000 for the POWs. Maybe I missed it, but how did you come up with this figure? Where did this figure come from? Because as I understood it—maybe I'm wrong—the Legion came up up with a figure of $5,000, means-tested.

Prof. Foster Griezic: First of all, there's a problem with means-testing, because, as I mentioned in the brief, the government doesn't have documentation to provide for a means test for a merchant seaman.

Mr. Chadderton mentioned how he got a letter from Mr. Collenette saying that the records had been destroyed. We have copies of the correspondence that Johnson sent out, telling the people to destroy the documents. It's going to be difficult, then, to have a means-tested $5,000 payment. I wasn't aware that the Legion had—perhaps I missed something—suggested a specific amount of $5,000, means-tested.

The Chairman: They were before this committee a few weeks ago and that was their proposal.

Mr. Bob Wood: The other vets had a similar proposal too, but not—

The Chairman: Anyway, all of us who were at that meeting can confirm that. It's in the record.

Mr. Proud.

Mr. George Proud: My question was, where or how did you come up with the $20,000? I'd like to know. A lot of figures have been tossed around. Mr. Riddell has a different figure.

Prof. Foster Griezic: We basically boiled it down from the amount that was outstanding to them from the government. It was an amount that was, again, premised on a realistic amount that the government could accept. That's how we arrived at that figure.

When I first made this proposal.... Mr. Wood said that it hadn't been raised before, but that's not quite true, because Les Benjamin, in Commons debates, was talking about compensation, no specific amount—

An hon. member: A hundred dollars.

An hon. member: A hundred dollars?

Prof. Foster Griezic: Sure, for clothing, because that's what they got.

But there was talk of compensation then. I first mentioned in 1988. Gordon had mentioned it. It had been talked of before. There was no formal request for it. That is correct.

Mr. George Proud: Where do you think we'd be today had that been an issue in the 1992 bill, in Bill C-84? Where do you think we'd be today with this stuff?

Prof. Foster Griezic: Boy! You're asking me.... Well, you can't rewrite history.

• 1755

Mr. George Proud: No. You don't have to answer that question.

Prof. Foster Griezic: I would have liked to include it, but I don't—

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. George Proud: There's just one other thing, Mr. Griezic. It's that terrible story of the 16-year-old, John Milmine, in Verdun, Quebec. How come—and I ask this question innocently—his parents wouldn't have been compensated? He was killed in the line of duty. You said that the only merchant seaman compensation at that time was if they were killed by direct enemy fire. That's as close as you're going to get to it. His ship was torpedoed.

Prof. Foster Griezic: He was simply missed.

Mr. George Proud: Okay.

Prof. Foster Griezic: Mr. Bruce knows the family. I did the research. I got a copy of his merchant navy articles and sent it down to the family.

The Chairman: Thanks, Mr. Proud.

[Translation]

You have five minutes, Mr. Laurin.

Mr. René Laurin: I'd like to come back to Mr. Riddell's suggestion that at least $100,000 be awarded to veteran merchant seamen. I'd just like to point out to him that his proposal isn't that far off from what other merchant navy veterans groups are asking for, because they would want any amount of compensation to be tax exempt. They are seeking $20,000, plus $20,000, plus $5,000, for a total of $45,000. If veterans were awarded $100,000, after taxes, they would be left with no more than $45,000 or $50,000. Of course, had veterans received money every year since the war ended, they probably would have benefitted may ways. However, while they might have earned more, they might also have paid more taxes over the past 50 years or so. Therefore, they wouldn't have as much left over. It's more likely that we will agree on a tax-exempt award of $20,000, plus $20,000, plus $5,000, which, all things considered, is not far from the $100,000 taxable award Mr. Riddell is seeking.

I have one final comment. We've heard some very eloquent and informative testimony, Mr. Chairman. I'm speaking personally. I don't know if others share my view, but since this is an urgent problem requiring an urgent solution and more veterans are dying every month, I think the committee should make a recommendation quickly. It's ready to do that, because it's well informed. For a number of weeks now, we've been hearing from witnesses who basically have been advancing the same arguments.

If any new witnesses wish to testify, it will be hard to say no, but if they agreed to hold off, this could speed up the committee's work and we might be able to make a recommendation to the government before the summer recess. Otherwise, this could take a lot more time. I for one feel that I have enough information to consider a recommendation together with my colleagues on the committee.

Again, I'm sympathetic to your plight. I think we already agree that some compensation is in order. The only thing left is to decide on an amount.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you.

I don't think there was a question for the witnesses, but those were some very good comments from my colleague and I'd like to respond from the chair. Tomorrow, the clerk and I are going to review how many other witnesses wish to appear before the committee on this issue. There certainly are more witnesses who wish to appear, and I understand that there's a desire by some members to have some officials appear.

I'm going to ask Mr. O'Reilly if he'd comment on that, because he has indicated an interest to me.

Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Following along that line, there are a lot of discrepancies in the numbers and there are a lot of things missing. In my own mind, I want to know what Veterans Affairs.... Perhaps some departmental officials could be brought in here as witnesses, because their attitudes and answers would be of interest to this committee.

• 1800

I am afraid that.... Expectations have risen here. I thought that the committee was to decide not how much compensation but whether in fact there should or shouldn't be compensation. We now seem to be talking about numbers, and if the department has no attitude to compensate—this is strictly my own observation after listening to the parliamentary secretaries ask the department questions—I think we need to have the department in here. I'd like to ask them some questions about the attitude of the department, particularly if in fact the compensation is in the works. If it isn't in the works, I don't think we should be raising people's expectations.

The Chairman: Thank you.

I would say that—

Mr. John O'Reilly: It's more of a procedural question than something for the witnesses.

The Chairman: No, that's fine.

Certainly there will be two decisions the committee will have to come to at some point. Will there be a recommendation to the government to offer compensation or not? If the committee recommends to offer compensation, then obviously, logically, it should suggest an amount or a range for the government's consideration.

Mr. O'Reilly had mentioned that, and other members, on both sides, mentioned the desire to have the Veterans Affairs officials appear. As I say, I'm going to review this tomorrow with the clerk. There are other witnesses who want to appear and certainly there are the Veterans Affairs officials who some members want to question on the matter. Then, of course, we have our own research staff. We had some consideration of having a brief of the options. There have been so many numbers and so many possible courses of action kicked around that we did say, early on, that we would probably ask our research staff to pull together in a brief—not a major, huge report but at least a briefing paper—the possible ways in which the committee could proceed.

So while I support Monsieur Laurin's comments that we're starting to get repetition in the evidence, I don't think we're a meeting or two away from making the decision on this if in fact we were to accommodate the witnesses who wish to appear—possibly departmental officials—and give our staff a bit of time to lay out the options before us. Perhaps a more realistic time might be before the House rises in the summer. That was sort of in my mind as a possible date we would try to achieve, but unless the committee tells me differently, I don't think we're a meeting or two away from a decision on this matter unless we don't hear any more witnesses.

On this matter, Mr. Goldring.

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Chairman—

The Chairman: Mrs. Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: —just on a matter of personal privilege, I'm enjoying the conversation, but we still have witnesses before us, I was next in line for a question, the time is getting late—

The Chairman: Yes.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: —and I would like to be able to put my question to the witnesses. Perhaps after that we can get back onto this.

The Chairman: Sure. We'll let you put your questions, Mrs. Longfield. It's just that Mr. Laurin's time wasn't even up, so we're still working on his time for a very important procedural matter.

An hon. member: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: I want to go to Mr. Goldring briefly on this and then we'll go back to the questions.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman, if the departmental people will be here to be involved in this committee, I would expect it to be for informational purposes. If a decision is made here, that decision should be made by the elected members.

The Chairman: Oh, that's a given. It will have to be decided by the elected members. Those of us who stand and fall for the electorate will have to make a recommendation one way or another. Sure. But the departmental people will have input to offer.

Okay? I appreciate that. I think it was important that we bring that into focus. Now we will go back to the questions. We can certainly stay a little longer if members want to and if the witnesses want to.

Mrs. Longfield, you are the next questioner.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Thank you.

I want to thank both of the witnesses, the many others who have come before the committee, and the many more who have spoken to me directly in my own constituency office and over the telephone.

I want to make a brief statement beforehand. It's probably to set the record straight.

Maybe I should let you know that I'm the daughter of a war veteran whose four brothers served. I thank God every day that they did that because it gave my family, my children, and my sister's children the opportunity to enjoy what we're having here today.

But somehow there's a misconception that if you were a member of the Canadian Armed Forces and a war veteran there were so many more things available.

• 1805

For example, my father joined at a very young age. He lied about his age. He had a grade 3 education when he joined. When the war was over, there was no such thing as as paid university for my father and for many others who had joined. Merchant seamen and other members of the armed forces joined the general services as young kids, a number of them with very little education. Even if he'd been in the merchant navy.... He had a grade 3 education. He couldn't apply for a university degree. He was too old to go back to elementary school. He had to support himself. There was no one there giving him a job. He worked in the mine. He retired from the mine. He passed away with silicosis. He was on the waiting list for a veterans' hospital. He didn't have access either; the waiting list applied to him as well as to merchant seamen.

He didn't die with a large pension plan. There was no money to send his family to school. I don't want to tell you a tale of poverty; we worked hard, just as many others did, but I think there's always been this perception that anyone who served in the armed forces had everything handed to them at the end and that if you were in the merchant navy you didn't.

I don't dispute for a minute that there is an injustice and that the merchant navy, long before Bill C-61, should have been considered as having the same status as other veterans. But when you start talking about considering post-secondary education.... I'd like to know how many merchant navy vets had more than a grade 9 or grade 10 education. That's not to cast aspersions, but I think they were like most of the enlisted men in the other forces; they had very little education when they went in.

How many do you think, just on the education end, actually could have if it had been available to them?

Prof. Foster Griezic: Who could have...?

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Who were at the stage when they left, when the war was over, where they could have gone to university if the money had been there, with an educational background....

Prof. Foster Griezic: Judi, number one, I'm glad to see that you've fully recovered from your health problems.

Number two, to get back to this, what we're dealing with here is a situation whereby the military had access to.... No one is saying that they took those such as your dad. Your dad, had he known about it—and this is a whole other issue—could have, in fact, when he came back, gone to an educational program to upgrade himself—to elementary school, to high school—to prepare for university. Those programs were year-round. Now, if he didn't know about it, then he didn't know about it. I have no idea of how many missed that, but there have to be scores.

It was the same thing with the merchant seamen. Kids were going in at 13, 14, and 15 years of age, directly out of school. Or they had not been at school but were pretending to be, sort of, because again, education was looked at differently at that point, in that time. How many could have taken advantage of this? I've listed some and that's just from my research from talking and meeting with people. Those people are in a distinct minority, but the government turned around and said it was preparing them, providing them with the “access” to become.... The merchant seamen were accessed out there to unemployment.

Many of them worked, like your dad, in the mines, and I can tell you of cases like Sheep Creek, in B.C. There is actually a mine there. It was a gold mine, and I know of merchant seamen who worked there because they couldn't get jobs.

I don't know how many there are, but if I were doing a comparison based on the information that I've been able to collect, which was with the Department of Transport and which is now with the Archives, most of the individuals didn't have access and didn't pursue education because for them—like your dad—it was a question of surviving. Most of the merchant navy kids came from the lower classes of society. That is documented, and as soon as you get into that ball game, you're talking about.... I'm the exception. I grew up beside the Toronto city dump. That's what we lived on.

• 1810

The Chairman: I'm sorry. We've run out of time for that round of questions. I'm going to go to Mr. Pratt now for five minutes.

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

I'd like to begin by sharing the comments that my colleagues have made in connection with the contribution that Gordon Olmstead made to this debate. He certainly was the focal point for this debate for many years. He was a long-time resident of Nepean as well. I'd certainly like to pay tribute to his efforts.

Professor Griezic, I'm just curious about a couple of things here. You mentioned the Americans and how they dealt with the issue in terms of recognition of the merchant navy veterans, in 1988, I guess. Do you know if they paid any compensation in terms of benefits that weren't available to the merchant navy that subsequently were paid in the form of retroactive compensation?

Prof. Foster Griezic: Mr. Pratt, first of all, I have no problems talking about comparing the Canadians with the Americans or the Australians and so on, but I think we have to keep in mind that we are talking about Canadians and we are dealing with the Canadian merchant navy and the Canadian military personnel.

Having said that, to get back to your question, so far as I am aware, no Allied nation has paid retroactive compensation as a block. Again, from the research I've done, from people who have been intimately involved with the merchant navy in the United States, and from the government records that I've been able to check there, there hasn't been any retroactivity. When people were at some meetings here that I attended and I heard that, it was news to me, so I then went and did my checking. There wasn't any retroactive payment.

Where the difference is—and this is crucial—is that they were getting the benefits immediately after the war. Canadians were not. That's the difference, and it's the one that we have to keep in mind.

Mr. David Pratt: The Americans were getting the benefits right after the war?

Prof. Foster Griezic: Yes. They weren't considered to be veterans, though.

The other thing I would point out about the Americans is that they were paid very well compared to.... This is why, in 1943, the Canadian government passed an Order in Council that didn't permit any more Canadians to sail on American ships: because Canadians weren't being paid well. That's why Mr. Randles in 1944 said to Park Shipping, “Start paying these guys or they're going to simply not ship out—and we need them.”

Mr. David Pratt: That brings me to my second question on the pay issue. We've been getting conflicting information in terms of what those pay levels were. I'm just wondering if, in terms of perhaps going through your presentation here, you could provide documentation—preferably original documents, obviously—with respect to support for your observations and arguments.

Prof. Foster Griezic: The actual pay slips? I've already given them to DVA. I have given some pay slips to DVA; they have the amounts that were paid and the income tax that was paid.

There's a real problem here, Mr. Pratt, and that is, merchant seamen didn't necessarily keep all their pay slips because...they just didn't. There are some cases where the individuals...even for their health care situations, when they were hospitalized and so on, it takes an incredible amount of digging to find the information about it. I've mentioned how I found a number of boxes with the transport department, which they didn't even know they had. It was through another archivist, as we were working on stuff, that we discovered this stuff about the health and the accidents that people had in the merchant navy. We were able to use those.

The Chairman: Last question, Mr. Pratt.

• 1815

Prof. Foster Griezic: So we will provide information on the pays and the amounts for the work that they did, based on specific categories—and comparable. There's a problem with the navy because, in the navy's categories—I spoke with Roger Sarty about this and I have documentation here from Roger—they didn't state specifically what their job description was. But they do have an income that they received, and when we compare them, as Gordon's chart did—

The Chairman: I'm sorry, but we're running out of time, Mr. Pratt. You can have one last quick question and then we'll go to Mr. Laurin.

Mr. David Pratt: One of the things that I'm having difficulty coming to grips with is the magnitude of any compensation—if the committee comes to the conclusion that compensation should be paid. In terms of looking at the situation with a wartime economy.... It's okay for us to look at this 55 years after the fact and try to apply the same standards we have today in terms of what was happening back then....

Your presentation makes reference to the fact that even a couple of years after the war, still fully 60% of the people in the merchant navy—7,000 of the 12,000—were still employed by the merchant navy, whereas people who were in the regular forces were being demobilized. In some cases, they were taking advantage, I suppose, of the educational benefits. In many cases, they were simply unemployed and looking for work.

To get to the point, it seems to me that the merchant navy, from what I understand, had access to unemployment insurance benefits, which the regular forces did not.

Prof. Foster Griezic: No, that's just not true. If I can—

Mr. David Pratt: Well, that's some of the information that I've been given, which I think the committee has been probably given as well.

Prof. Foster Griezic: That's in the ANAF vets' report. Mr. Brooks made the comparison about the unemployment insurance. The Legion, in fact, made a comparison between collecting unemployment insurance and having a government job, which I think is ludicrous, but it's their right to make that comparison. When I stated—

The Chairman: Professor, I'm going to ask you.... You said that it's not true. It was a pretty simple question and you've said that it's not true. I have other questioners. Maybe you could submit anything that could—

Prof. Foster Griezic: Oh, yes, I'm going to do that, as I mentioned before.

The Chairman: I appreciate that. I have other questioners and we're over our time, so I want to continue.

Prof. Foster Griezic: Oh. Just one thing, to Mr. Pratt?

The Chairman: Very briefly.

Prof. Foster Griezic: Very, very, briefly, with respect to the statistics that I gave about the ships, by 1955 there were only 1,000 and by 1948 there were only 4,000 people still working.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Briefly, Mr. Laurin.

Mr. René Laurin: I have a question for Mr. Riddell, but since it's rather personal, he's free to answer it, or not.

How old were you when you enlisted in the merchant navy?

[English]

Mr. Bill Riddell: I was 16. I left the eighth grade of school.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: What did you do before you enlisted?

[English]

Mr. Bill Riddell: I was a little boy going to school.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: What year were you in?

[English]

Mr. Bill Riddell: I was in the eighth grade, the eighth year.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: My next question is for Professor Griezic. Is it possible that some military veterans didn't receive any of the benefits available to them at the time? Did some people not avail themselves of these benefits because they weren't interested? For example, perhaps some veterans had no interest in going to university, and so forth.

• 1820

Prof. Foster Griezic: It's quite likely, Mr. Laurin, that some veterans either died, or were unaware that certain government benefits were available to them.

Mr. René Laurin: I asked the question for the following reason. If we were to agree today to provide compensation to merchant seamen, because they weren't able to take advantage of this benefits, would we then have to offer the same compensation to military veterans who may not have had access to similar benefits at the time?

Prof. Foster Griezic: I understand your concern, but as I said earlier, we're dealing with an entirely different situation. Military veterans were entitled to certain benefits. All they had to do was ask. Veteran merchant seamen, on the other hand, were not as fortunate. There's a difference. I'm certain there are people, like Ms. Longfield's father....

Mr. René Laurin: The veteran who couldn't find anything that suited him didn't receive anything. You're asking to be compensated for something you didn't get. If we compensate you, do we then have to compensate those persons who were offered certain benefits, but chose not to accept them?

Prof. Foster Griezic: It all comes down to personal choices. If the government offered a veteran money for a home or to set up a business and the veteran declined the offer, then that was his choice. Merchant seamen didn't have a choice. I don't believe veterans who declined an offer of help back then should receive some form of compensation today. It's unfortunate for them, but I don't think they should be compensated.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Laurin.

[English]

Last question, to Mr. Wood.

Mr. Bob Wood: I have just a quick question, Mr. Griezic. I think you might have inadvertently given Mr. Pratt some wrong dates when he asked you about U.S. compensation. Maybe even I don't have it right, but I was led to believe that at the end of the war the U.S. merchant navy were not compensated for anything after the war and that it took a court action by merchant navy veterans in the United States to get benefits, which came into effect in 1988. I think you might have given Mr. Pratt some wrong dates. That's all.

Prof. Foster Griezic: I hope I didn't.

Mr. Bob Wood: I think you said they got benefits at the end of the war and I—

Prof. Foster Griezic: They did have benefits. They didn't have compensation. I've never said “compensation”.

Mr. Bob Wood: They didn't have all their benefits either. They didn't get compensation in 1988 either, sir.

Prof. Foster Griezic: That's right. They didn't, and—

Mr. Bob Wood: They finally got their benefits and it took a court action in the United States for them to get their benefits.

Prof. Foster Griezic: Well, there have been further improvements. They now have burials and this sort of thing, which they didn't have.

But I didn't say that they got all the benefits, and if I did, to Mr. Pratt, boy, I'm going to correct that.

Mr. Bob Wood: I think if you look back in your transcript...you might have said that.

Prof. Foster Griezic: Okay.

The Chairman: What we'll do—and I think that maybe this is the wisdom of those members who also want to have in the departmental officials, frankly, for at least a session—I imagine, is that we will submit to our officials and to our researchers a bunch of questions about where we've heard some perhaps conflicting testimony—all put forward with goodwill, of course. I think there's some wisdom in us getting some pretty basic questions answered, and that's probably why some of these members have suggested that.

I want to thank you, Mr. Riddell and Professor Griezic, for coming back to this committee once again, for your remarks today, and for a series of questions. It falls to the chair to try to be a timekeeper, and it's not always a pleasant job, but you have to try to do it. If at any time I was hurrying you in any way, it was simply to try to allow as many questions as possible from as many members as possible. Thank you very much.

The committee is adjourned until Thursday morning.