NDVA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA DÉFENSE NATIONALE ET DES ANCIENS COMBATTANTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 5, 1998

• 0904

[English]

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

Our apologies to our witnesses, because we're two or three minutes late. Around here, that's not bad sometimes. So I appreciate your patience.

Just before we go to the witnesses, I would like to indicate to the members on the committee that this is the final meeting of one of our researchers, Michel Rossignol, who is going to be going on secondment to the Department of National Defence.

• 0905

Michel, on behalf of all the committee members, I want to thank you very much for your good service to this committee and wish you well in your work over the next couple of years with DND. They'll be lucky to receive you there. Thank you very much.

Mr. Michel Rossignol (Committee Researcher): Thank you.

The Chairman: I'll now go to Mr. Gordon Olmstead, whom I'm very pleased to introduce. I don't know that he needs an introduction. I imagine everyone here on the committee has had the pleasure of meeting Mr. and Mrs. Olmstead, as I did in May. I was on a pilgrimage to England at that time with Mr. Goldring and Monsieur Godin and others, of course, and we had the pleasure of being fellow travellers, as Gordon says, on that very interesting and emotional pilgrimage.

Gordon, it's a pleasure to welcome you and your good wife here this morning. Please feel free to address us with your remarks.

Mr. Gordon Olmstead (Past President, Canadian Merchant Navy Prisoner of War Association; Past Chairman, Merchant Navy Coalition for Equality): Thank you for your introduction. I am indebted to you for your kind consideration for my infirmity.

I'm now past chairman of the coalition and past president of the Canadian Merchant Navy Prisoner of War Association. I am indebted to my colleagues for the smooth and effective transition that has taken place for my release.

My submission contains considerable background, because many of you on the committee are new to merchant navy matters.

Please permit me to introduce some visitors who were able to attend today to show their support. Senator Marshall was unable to attend. John Vernier, who is with the National POW Association, and his wife Gladys are here. For the NOAC, we have Ted Herrndorf, Tom Brooks—who should be up here since he's taken over a lot of the work of the committee—and Harold Roberts, who has worked hard in the committee. My wife and caregiver, Dorothy, is here. And you know Foster Griezic and Muriel MacDonald, fellow sufferers.

The Chairman: Everyone is most welcome, Mr. Olmstead, and as I say, with those introductions, we look forward to your presentation.

Mr. Gordon Olmstead: I will add a few things that are not in the script.

The hunger strikers promoted the merchant navy cause on war service and the lack of recognition and benefits. That is a good reason for compensation; however, there is a more compelling reason. Our archival and anecdotal testimony will show that the government created and maintained a merchant navy as a discrete and insular minority of disadvantage. They were stigmatized, demeaned and pilloried by Hal Banks, and the denigration was carried forward to justify their unworthiness.

I have spent much of the past 11 years in the struggle for justice for the merchant navy and its POWs. Roger Cyr, president of the Hong Kong vets, was quoted in Dave Brown's column in the Ottawa Citizen last Tuesday. Have some of you seen that? He said “A series of governments have decided to let time and death solve the inequities”. Roger extended his mandate to all POWs in the Far East, as many of our merchant navy group already know.

The lack of a definitive response to your motion of March 8, 1994, is a good example of delay.

I have been under palliative home care for two months and find it adequate. Not one penny is funded by Veterans Affairs. I and my colleagues will cover the portions of my testimony that have been translated to French and they will assist me in answering questions. I am ready to proceed, and when my voice gives out... I have Parkinson's disease, which affects my voice.

• 0910

On page 2 of my copy, under “POW Recognition”, it says in 1942 Geneva brokered a multilateral agreement among the western Axis powers and the Allies that merchant navy internees would be treated as prisoners of war. External Affairs ratified the agreement for Canada, and Canada treated Axis merchant navy internees as prisoners of war. But Canadian merchant navy prisoners of war were denied that status on repatriation.

Further down the page, under “The Dispossessed”, it says the military, including POWs, were permitted to volunteer for the Far East, but merchant navy prisoners of war were advised they would not receive benefits already earned if they did not sign up for the Far East. It was clear the distinction was governed by their value to the shipping industry, not their value as human beings. Enemy merchant navy prisoners returned home as POWs, but Canadian POWs, including those from the Far East, were denied POW recognition and benefits.

The Canadian merchant navy prisoners of war were denied higher education, most POW benefits, and all preferences in employment and rehabilitation. Some were advised they could not expect employment after four years as idle POWs, others that the jobs were reserved for the real veterans. In recent years various members of Veterans Affairs and veterans' associations that claimed to represent us have claimed we get the same benefits as other POWs, and always have.

Military POWs had the highest rate of participation in academic educational programs; that comes from the Herman report. But Canadian merchant navy POWs were excluded, including those held by the Japanese. Military prisoners of the Japanese were granted POW compensation in 1971. Merchant navy prisoners were included as civilians in 1976.

Canadian merchant navy prisoners of war—European theatre on repatriation—were advised to register for service in the Far East or lose benefits already earned. All military, including POWs, could volunteer, but were otherwise under no obligation. The demand to serve in the Far East was not attractive. The Japanese were methodically torturing and massacring seamen.

I'll just break to show you this book. This gives some of the reasons there were not many Canadian merchant navy prisoners of war, because the Japanese had a policy not just of sinking the ships but of slaughtering the crews. This is the story of 16 ships, in which there was surviving evidence that all had been slaughtered, or, in one case, a lifeboat got away near shore and the bodies were all found in the water filled with machine gun bullets. In other cases, seamen were taken aboard submarines and tortured. So the fact that 16 had some evidence left is maybe an indication that there were many more for which there was no evidence left. The submarines would come back, sometimes the next day, and look for survivors to slaughter.

So that was the option we had after coming home. The chief officer of the Daisy Moller, H.G. Hoyer, was identified as a Norwegian in this book, but he was actually a Canadian victim from Vancouver—and I'll slide over that. Many more crews were massacred without conclusive surviving evidence. They are among the dead that Veterans Affairs describes as hypothetical. There are more hypotheticals. The Battle of the Atlantic had taken more than 1,254 Canadian lives when it ended in May 1943. Four years later, in May 1947, the Canada Pension Commission had awarded only 356 dependants pensions. That is only 28% of the 1,254 killed by enemy action.

• 0915

Then we go on to the bottom of that page in the English version.

There is a statement by Arthur Randles that says “It would, therefore, be detrimental to the national interests to attract men to leave the profession”. So the shipping magnates wanted a seaman to be conscripted or frozen in his job. That was turned down, but they found a better way of giving them no alternative.

One of the attractions that impels merchant navy officers to join the navy is the higher scale of pay for equivalent ranks, to which must be added the factors of wives' allowances and the entire freedom from tax enjoyed by naval officers at sea or abroad.

A similar disparity exists in the ratings.

On page 5, under “Shipowner's Imperative”, there is a statement from G.L.C. Johnson, director of merchant seamen, to the Special Committee on Veterans Affairs that says:

It is considered that with the continued demand for qualified merchant seamen to man Canada's merchant fleet, every endeavour should be made to encourage the men we have to remain at sea.

The encouragement was persuasive and brutal. There was no legislation, no rehabilitation, no academic education, not even legion correspondence courses, as provided to the military.

Further down the page, Mr. Mutch of the special committee says:

In fact, a man who has not got a discharge certificate for service overseas practically finds himself in the position that he has not got a licence to work...

On June 22, 1948, the Special Committee on Veterans Affairs issued its final report in the minutes of proceedings number 27. Page 882 reported on merchant seamen. Of these 10,000, later adjusted to 12,000, there was employment for less than 4,000 in the Canadian merchant navy. Few of them had any training or experience that would enable them to earn a livelihood on land. In addition, as just mentioned, none of the 8,000 had discharge certificates, and therefore they had not a licence to work.

On the next page, under “With Seagoing Ended, Only Poverty and Degradation Remains”, it says that with 66% of merchant seamen unemployed and captive labour no longer needed by the shipping industry, it was time for the Department of Transport to provide the legislation and rehabilitation they had previously failed to provide. Instead, at the end of 1948 Hal Banks and the Seafarers' International Union were brought in by the shipowners with the complicity of the federal government. Hal Banks was permitted to enter Canada without disclosing his criminal record. By 1956 he had deprived thousands of seamen, mainly former maritime seamen and members of the Canadian Seamen's Union, of the right to work with his “do not ship” list. Seamen listed by Banks could not sail. No charges were revealed and no trials were held.

Hal Banks wasn't responsible to anybody. He could do as he wished.

• 0920

I'll ask Foster to continue on page 6, further down.

Professor Foster J.K. Griezic (Adjunct Professor, Canadian History, Carleton University): There are instances of factual accidents even during blackouts where next of kin of merchant seamen were denied any benefits. That happened specifically to an individual in Liverpool who was killed by a bombing by the Germans as he was trying to get back to his ship during a blackout.

The Canada Shipping Act of 1934 was imposed literally without recognition of wartime conditions, and without benefit of the doubt. There are instances also where valid applications never reached the pension commission because the Department of Transport advised, “Don't waste your time”. That's in writing, by the way. Seamen killed or injured by high seas during daylight did not quality. Seamen ill with such diseases as malaria and dysentery had no coverage until the Manning Pool Act was amended in 1944 to provide a maximum of 12 weeks of coverage. This was the attitude of Transport, which rejected every recommendation of the Special Committee on Veterans Affairs and failed to prepare any rehabilitation legislation in 1946 when the special committee's recommendations were legislated for other groups.

I'm now at page 7, at about the middle of the page.

When thousands of naval seamen were discharged after war's end, merchant navy working conditions and pay did not attract navy personnel simply because basically the wages were far better for the navy and most of the merchant seamen were simply going over to the navy rather than the reverse. In 1962 Bill C-64 provided “as if” access to the War Veterans Allowance Act to a wide range of civilians providing war services. Wartime merchant seamen were included, but with more qualification restrictions than most of the 19 others in the group. Legion supervisors, who were in charge of military canteens and not designated targets of the enemy, were provided with full veterans benefits under the Supervisors War Service Benefits Act.

In July 1963, after almost a year of investigation, the Industrial Inquiry Commission on the Disruption of Shipping, headed by Justice T.G. Norris of British Columbia, issued a report. The report was a scathing indictment of Hal Banks, his methods and his associates. Banks was in fact compared to Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini for his dictatorial actions. Justice Norris called the results industrial death. Seamen were robbed of employment at sea and branded as unemployable communists ashore. Their treatment was brutal. A favourite persuader was to spread a seaman's legs across a raised curb and jump on them to break them. Brutality was not restricted to the seamen; even captains were attacked for as little reason as to delay a ship.

There was a magnificent incident just outside of Trois-Rivières.

[Translation]

Just as the ship was about to leave Canada, people on shore who worked for Mr. Banks shot at it to try to prevent it from leaving Canada.

[English]

The individuals were eventually caught and imprisoned in Trois-Rivières and brought back there and placed in jail. In 1964 Banks fled to the U.S. as a fugitive from justice. The federal government was satisfied to leave it at that.

I'm not sure whether many people will remember the Hal Banks situation. When Banks couldn't be found by the RCMP, an investigative journalist from the Toronto Star simply went down and found Banks on his yacht in New York harbour. The Canadian government did not bring him back.

Many seamen were reduced to unemployment and poverty. In the four decades of the Cold War, Canadian merchant seamen, who had maintained their loyalty under wartime stress, endured a Canadian brand of McCarthyism and defamation and found themselves less acceptable than immigrating Nazis, who were assumed to be anti-Communist and therefore acceptable.

• 0925

Mr. Gordon Olmstead: POW compensation is on the next page.

In 1987, Bill C-100 was assented to on December 17. Among other items, it amended POW legislation to its present form. The time-based increments equate to roughly 5% for each six months of incarceration but end at 30 months. The 30 months was designed to accommodate the Dieppe prisoners. There was no recognition of long-term prisoners like the primarily four-year prisoners of the merchant navy.

Near the bottom of page 8, on November 8, 1990, the Honourable G. Merrithew, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, in speaking of merchant seamen stated that:

The Royal Canadian Legion, the Army, Navy, Air Force Association, and the National Council of Veteran Associations, along with members of our department and members of the portfolio which would include the Canadian Pension Commission, Bureau of Pension Advocates and Veterans Appeal Board would put this thing to a major study with all groups present to see if anything can be done and if we can reach a meeting of minds on this particularly thorny issue.

The minister announced to the standing committee on November 8, 1990, that it was set up as a topic for discussion on October 24, 1990. The exclusion of merchant seamen from a major study of merchant seamen was discriminatory in its purpose and in its results.

It should be noted that terms of reference for the study group were issued by the deputy minister on February 1, 1991. Paragraph 5 of the terms included:

The study group will be empowered to invite participants from other veterans' organizations, government departments or agencies, and non-government organizations as agenda items warrant.

All requests for participation by merchant navy representatives were rejected by the veterans' associations and the minister, most with considerable condescension. It was a gross denial of human rights and justice.

Then we go on farther down the page. Mr. Chadderton testified to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs on March 21, 1991. It appears in the proceedings at page 61:10, item 1010. He said:

I want to say first that the present coverage for merchant seamen is not all that bad, and I just feel that we must place on record the record of the facts of the situation. Under the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, any merchant seaman, once he is signed on, is covered on a ship from the time he is in enemy waters or dangerous waters. Also, if he is ashore outside Canada he is covered for the same coverage as for World War II veterans.

That particular piece of legislation was written in 1945, and it may surprise you to know that I was involved in writing it so I know what was involved.

The coverage that Chadderton refers to still exists in the Merchant Navy Veteran and Civilian War-related Benefits Act of 1992 as it applies to civilian seamen in subsection 15.2(1) on pensions and allowances, which states: “who during the War and as a direct result of enemy action or counteraction against the enemy action...suffered disability or death”. This in no way equates to Mr. Chadderton's testimony or to military coverage under the Pension Act, which provides coverage for injury, disease or aggravation thereof that was attributable to or incurred during war service.

• 0930

Prof. Foster Griezic: The Consultation Group of Veteran's Associations is the next one. This is at the top of page 10 of our presentation.

The consultation group report of May 8, 1991, to the minister inserted possibly the most important statement in the Chevrier report of 1945. It is as follows:

The Government has studied the possibility of extending benefits to Canadian Merchant Seamen. While it is not considered justifiable, having regard to the terms of employment and remuneration of Merchant Seamen to make available to them benefits on the scale provided members of Naval, Military and Air Forces, it is deemed advisable and equitable, in consideration of the essential services rendered by them, involving hardships and risks in many respects comparable to those met by members of the Forces to offer certain additional benefits to those who have served in dangerous waters and are prepared to serve for the duration of the war if required.

This truncated quotation enabled the consultation group to state:

Our Consultation Group is not, of course, bound by any statement in the Chevrier report.

That is a neat way of damning with faint praise. The next sentence in the paragraph, however, would put the matter in a different light:

Such benefits should not be of a nature which would encourage seamen to leave the industry

—in other words, they simply wanted to keep them there—

at the end of the war to seek employment in other fields as the services of many skilled seamen will be required if Canada is to maintain a Merchant Marine after the war.

One wonders why the consultation group avoided quoting the more supportive positions of the Special Committee on Veterans Affairs and the Interdepartmental Committee on Merchant Seamen.

I am moving on to page 11, about the middle of the page. There's a list of exclusions in Bill C-84, and not one of the five exclusions above the middle of the page applies to a “civilian” merchant seaman or other civilian. In other words, there is a distinction, a discrimination, against merchant seamen of World War II, under the former Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, and sustained by Bill C-84.

But there is no transition clause in Bill C-84 to protect the rights and recognition that Bill C-84 takes away from the merchant navy veterans. In other words, Bill C-84 was not what the government claimed it was, and what it provided.

I turn to the bottom of that page, the second-of-last paragraph. The recognition of the service of the merchant navy veterans falls far short of recognition of the military. It even falls short of recognition of service for the 20 civilian organizations in the Merchant Navy Veteran and Civilian War-related Benefits Act. The cited anomalies have been maintained since July 1992.

In a program overview, VAC announced that Bill C-84 was, in addition to the above:

...limiting future eligibility for Allied veterans to those who were domiciled in Canada at the time of enlistment... No existing Allied recipients who live in Canada will be affected by this change.

Obviously if they never had a chance to apply until after Bill C-84 was passed, they are cut off. This had the appearance of a pre-emptive strike against Allied merchant seamen. Who else is left? There is also a breach of faith with the many experienced seamen from overseas who were contracted to serve on Canadian ships and were promised Canadian status.

I now move to page 13, about the middle of the page. The government ignored merchant navy POWs in all surveys and medical studies. They were a consolidated group of older men with an average birth year of 1910. They were long-term prisoners of four years or more, and an ideal group to study.

• 0935

The rigour with which next of kin of merchant navy war dead were rejected is easily illustrated. On May 22, 1950, the Department of Transport announced that 328 dependants were in receipt of pensions. That is less than 30% of the number of merchant seamen who died as a result of enemy action.

According to the Canada Shipping Act of 1934, the Department of Transport would not admit loss through disappearance at sea—and I would stress that this is very important—until more than one year had elapsed. On the other hand, and in contradiction, the Canadian Pension Commission would not accept a claim after one year had elapsed. The people were therefore caught in a catch-22 situation in which they couldn't become recognized as being actually dead. The burials at sea—of which I happen to fortunately have a photograph—occurred with greater regularity than the government was prepared to admit. Many years after the discrimination became irrelevant, Veterans Affairs gazetted an extension of the claim period.

On page 14, we jump to the Honourable Mr. Merrithew's 1990 response to government committees, public pressure and the Human Rights Commission on merchant navy issues. It was to set up a “major study of this thorny problem”, with a wide range of VAC participants and the three largest veterans organizations. The study completely excluded merchant navy participation or witnesses and took a year.

Mr. Chadderton appointed himself advocate for the merchant seamen, and declined to permit representation at the table by his captive client. In a letter dated March 27, 1991, he pointed out “as kindly as possible” that having all nineteen of his organizations present was impractical. He did not explain the relevance of all his organizations to a “major study of the Merchant Navy”. The study, in isolation from those with knowledge of the merchant navy, enabled participants to reinforce each other's misconceptions of the wartime merchant navy. The misconceptions were evident when the MN was finally permitted to see Bill C-84 at the time of first reading on June 4, 1992—and there are ample examples of that problem.

If you can now go over to the top of page 16, Mr. MacAulay, who was then the Secretary of State responsible for Veterans Affairs, stated, “...we would explore all possible avenues within existing legislation.” In other words, that was Bill C-84. In the case of merchant navy POWs, however, the merchant navy veterans legislation does not credit service after the POW is released at the prison gate, but only if he was captured at sea, and not at all if he made landfall before capture. And as a matter of fact, there were cases in which that took place. Seamen captured while travelling on orders to join a ship abroad are not covered for service in any way. In fact, any merchant navy veteran, even if a member of a manning pool and travelling on orders to join a ship, is excluded from service credit or coverage.

These are only a few examples of contrived, long-delayed, and mean-spirited responses to the standing committee's report of October 1991—and that was a fine report that was produced, and some of the members of this committee were actually on that committee at that time as well. One is reluctant to identify victims who could be savaged.

At the bottom of the page, it continues with the testimony of Mr. J. David Nicholson, the deputy minister, and his staff to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs on June 20, 1991. It indicates that VAC attitudes towards wartime merchant seaman have changed little over the decades: “...not including merchant mariners in post-war programs...was a policy decision taken by the government of the day.” “Canada's treatment of the merchant mariner population compares favourably with that accorded merchant mariners in other countries.” His statement is totally incorrect, but that's irrelevant.

• 0940

The DVA posture has remained constant through the decades, but the reasoning has changed. In the immediate post-war period, merchant seaman were attributed high pay and were assured careers at sea. They were essential to the merchant fleet, and needed to be denied alternative opportunities. The government then sold off its ships and the fleet disappeared. There was a 66% unemployment rate by the end of the 1940s.

Then, certain leaders of the Canadian Seamen's Union were described as communists, and were alleged to be under Moscow's control and a threat to Canada. It has been subsequently proven by Mr. Kaplan—who just wrote the book about Mr. Mulroney—that there was no CSU connection to or control by Moscow whatsoever. If there was, he hasn't been able to discover it, and he used both Russian documents and Canadian documents—and as we know, Mr. Kaplan is somewhat to the right of the political spectrum. In McCarthyite fashion, members were automatically made guilty by association and of course deserved the unemployment and abuse to which they were victims. Then their wartime sacrifices were forgotten. So much time has elapsed that the wrongs must have been right. The old reasoning has been discredited by history and government records. Now a lack of military discipline justifies everything, including a higher percentage of casualties than any Canadian service and a denial of participation in Canada's post-war prosperity.

At the bottom of page 17, this goes on to talk about the activity in relationship with VAC.

Discussions also commenced on compensation for years of imposed illiteracy, denigration and discrimination, as recently as March. Then a frustrated group of seamen in New Brunswick threatened a hunger strike but were persuaded to back off. Here is part of the minister's response, from an article Campbell Morrison in the Fredericton Daily Gleaner:

My position is that they have access to all the benefits that the armed forces veterans have and feel very good about that because I was part of the team that led the charge. ... They just feel there is more to be had.

As with all CMNPOWs, they were denied all academic education and rehabilitation benefits. They were also denied POW compensation when it was awarded to military Far East POWs in 1971, but were included as civilians in 1976 when POW compensation for the European theatre was implemented to include civilians. The time-based categories did not extend to CMNPOWs. For CMNPOWs, does palliative care with a means test settle the account? I would suggest it does not.

It continues at the top of page 19.

Mr. Gordon Olmstead: In an in camera meeting of March 8, 1994, the standing committee passed two motions. The one dealing with merchant navy testimony stated:

That, the Department of Veterans Affairs give strong consideration to reviewing the case put forward by the Canadian Merchant Navy Prisoner of War Association that an extension beyond the thirty month POW compensation schedule be granted.

In testimony two days later, on March 10, Veterans Affairs stated that the merchant navy POWs get the same access and same benefits, and dismissed merchant navy claims as “alleged technical and legal errors in the merchant navy legislation.” Veterans Affairs promised only to “explore all possible avenues within existing legislation.”

• 0945

At the same March 10 hearing, Deputy Minister Nicholson stated to the standing committee:

There is no doubt that parliamentarians can do what they will [on compensation]...you could put any form of [POW] compensation you wanted...it is deemed [by Veterans Affairs] to be adequate...and...it's not likely that it [extension of the time base] would be considered at this time.

Veterans Affairs took a year to respond to your request and did so by providing estimates on national POW and legion proposals, but not on your request. Jack Frazer tried hard to get answers and didn't.

As included in my letter of May 3, 1997 to Mr. Morawski, the current five-year response to your motion estimates an outlay of $3.5 million. The assumption is made that no expenditure could be made until 1999. It is now over four years since you made your request. The average birth year of Canadian merchant navy POWs is 1910. Most have been outwaited. Please don't let it happen to them all.

My colleagues will deal with other matters concerning merchant seamen.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Olmstead.

Does that conclude the presentations from the witnesses?

Prof. Foster Griezic: No, actually I was going to make a very brief three-page presentation, and you can then move on to the others.

The Chairman: Would you like to go ahead, then, Professor Griezic?

Prof. Foster Griezic: I too would like to thank the committee for giving Mr. Olmstead and the merchant navy the opportunity to appear before this committee once again.

[Translation]

I am pleased to be here once again. It was almost two years ago that we were here. I believe that it was very important for us to come, especially for QuebecKers, both Anglophones and Francophones. Indeed, in 1984, Mr. Howe said that Quebec losses, in the merchant navy, represented 40% of total losses. For me, it is really important to know that Quebecers, both Anglophones and Francophones, had a significant contribution in these wars.

[English]

What I'm going to be talking about briefly is an extension of what Mr. Olmstead has presented. It talks basically about the purposeful politics of underinclusion of a class of Canadians. A case can be made quite clearly with the discrimination of the Canadian government against Canada's wartime merchant seamen and seawomen.

What the larger brief basically talks about is how in fact the government was discriminating against them, and this has gone on for over half a century, the underinclusion of these victims of discrimination, and how it can be done cost free, effectively, without waiting for it to occur with their individual and collective death.

Canada's merchant seamen constitute an underincluded class or group that was purposely discriminated against by the Canadian government, not only during the war but more emphatically after the war, when they were denied access to rehabilitation programs that were provided for their military comrades. This was discrimination, both legislatively and in common practice, common law, as well as in the sociological social context, against a minority group or class of Canadians.

These Canadians have distinctive characteristics as a discrete, distinct and finite group. The parameters defining them excluded them from joining the military in many ways. This includes age—too young, too old—and physical disadvantage—eye glasses, too short, too light, and so on—and sex—women were in combat situations, and indeed were prime targets on ships as radio operators, the sparks. They were also educationally disadvantaged and socio-economically disadvantaged. These specified grounds preclude distinctions being practised against them that are discriminatory, and yet that occurred with the government.

• 0950

It's not really necessary for me to go into detail about how the government functioned during the war, but it's well known that they functioned by Order in Council. The massive books of Orders in Council demonstrate they weren't functioning in parliamentary fashion, but it was a wartime situation and that's understandable.

The paramilitary volunteer merchant seamen, who were called the fourth arm of the fighting services, were essential to the war effort. There is no question of that whatsoever. That was recognized during the war. It has been reinforced after the war. The problem has been to get rid of the mythology of their being overpaid, not wearing uniforms and so on. We have photographs of them in uniform. We have photographs of them being tested medically to see whether they could serve, and that sort of thing. The incomes they received were far less than their naval counterparts, and even the other servicemen as well.

They certainly were treated in a special fashion, because legislation was enacted to control and place restrictions on them. They were fingerprinted and photographed, which was illegal during the war, but the government did it nonetheless.

They were excluded from the military benefits provided during the war and even afterwards. During the war they paid income tax, and I've included in my brief examples of that, because the government denied they had to pay income tax. I haven't been able to get a full range of the income tax forms from 1939. It's really fortunate that I've been able to collect some from merchant seamen who are still alive whose families saved those pay slips.

Not only did they pay income tax, they were forced to contribute to compulsory war savings, and only one other group of Canadians had to do that. The government has confirmed both of those situations, with the income tax and the compulsory war savings.

In order to obtain better working and living conditions and wages, the unlicensed deep sea personnel unionized, as their allied shipmates had already done. The government negotiated with them and some improvements resulted after 1944. That was five years into the war before improvements occurred, and it was only because of the unionization. Mr. Randles, even after that happened, had to talk to the Parks company to make sure the Parks Shipping Lines adhered to the contract, which they weren't doing.

In the post-war reconstruction programs for the military, the government simply excluded them. They were assisted by the Gouzenko affair. To eliminate the merchant navy the government began privatizing the fleet. They advertised the ships at bargain basement prices and informed potential buyers that the ships on which the merchant seamen had sailed were poorly built and offered a 25% reduction in price for that fact. Clearly, merchant seamen weren't advised of that during the war.

In 1946, due to what was happening, Arthur Randles, who had been the director of merchant seamen, resigned and was replaced by Captain G.L.C. Johnson, a known opponent of the union. Lionel Chevrier, another opponent of the union and a friend of the shipping interests, had been appointed Minister of Transport to oversee the merchant navy's destruction. Mr. Chevrier also destroyed his own records—had them shredded.

In August 1946 Captain Johnson, on government instructions, ordered the destruction of merchant seamen's records. Fortunately, not all of them were destroyed.

There's a page missing in my brief here.

• 0955

The Chairman: Professor, while you're looking for that, I just want to draw your attention to the fact that it's 9.55 a.m. I hope we'll have lots of time for questions from colleagues at the end of your submission.

Prof. Foster Griezic: Okay, I'll simply leap to the conclusion, because there are two aspects I want to reinforce.

One is the merchant seamen's request that they be given the same benefits as their military comrades. C.D. Howe, the Minister of Reconstruction, on July 7, 1947, told the House the merchant seamen should get benefits from their union rather than from the government. Clearly, during the war these individuals were not fighting for their union, they were fighting for Canadians and Canada and the Canadian government.

As mentioned by Gordon, there was considerable unemployment of the merchant seamen after the war due to the privatization. They had no unemployment insurance, they had no workmen's compensation and they were dead-ended into vocational training sea jobs. They were purposely and legislatively excluded from becoming part of the university-educated military who would become the Canadian “leaders of business, professional and public life for the years that lie ahead”.

The underinclusion continued, as Canada's wartime merchant seamen were refused designation as war veterans and the attendant benefits military veterans received. The underinclusion was reinforced when they were considered and legislated as civilian veterans in 1962 by Bill C-62, and then with their inclusion in the even more restrictive Bill C-84 of 1992, when they were placed with more than 20 civilian groups rather than the military, as was the case in Australia or Great Britain.

Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): How long has this been going?

Prof. Foster Griezic: So at this point—

The Chairman: If I might, I've indicated to the witnesses we have two hours set aside for them. I hope they're coming to the end of their presentation. I think we're starting to get into a bit of reiteration and I want to make sure members on both sides have lots of chances to probe the issues with their questions. So I would encourage succinctness at this point.

Prof. Foster Griezic: Fine. I'll cut off right there, because I was just going to talk about what they had been excluded from and how the government can provide some of the things they were excluded from—cost-free sorts of things. But that can come up in questions and be dealt with quite readily in that regard.

We're certainly open to questions from the committee, Mr. O'Brien.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Professor Griezic.

Mrs. MacDonald, we have your brief before us. Will that suffice for us or do you want a brief moment to speak to it? I really want to encourage the opportunity for questions from the members, though.

Ms. Muriel MacDonald (Executive Director, Merchant Navy Coalition for Equality): No, that's quite all right.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. We appreciate the witnesses' presentation. I don't in any way mean to curtail your comments, but sometimes people on the witness side forget we have their written submissions and often have had a chance to review the material ahead of time. Once issues have been highlighted verbally, it's important to allow time for members to go to questions.

Our procedure in committee is that we begin with the opposition. We'll go to Mr. Goldring first for the Reform party.

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): How long do I have?

The Chairman: We'll start with a 10-minute round. I don't know if it's agreeable. Do you want to make any opening comments, Mr. Wood, as parliamentary secretary?

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): I have just one quick comment and I'll get right back to Peter.

Maybe we can get into this later, but I think the other members of the committee should know Professor Griezic's views do not necessarily reflect the desires of all merchant mariners. I was notified in writing recently by at least one merchant navy association—and I have a copy here if you want to table it—that Mr. Griezic does not represent them or their ideals in any way, even though he is a very knowledgeable witness and very respected. So while Mr. Griezic may present a compelling case, he does not represent the views of the entire merchant navy community. I just think the committee should be aware of that.

• 1000

The Chairman: I appreciate that. If you could table that, Mr. Wood, we'd appreciate it.

Now we'll go to a 10-minute round of questions, beginning with Mr. Goldring.

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

Thank you very much for the presentation, Mr. Olmstead. You certainly are to be congratulated for your hard work and tenacity at staying with this subject.

I have shared some of your frustrations in trying to ask questions and not receiving direct answers from the ministry. I'll refer here to one question I asked of the minister in the House. I said that the merchant navy sailors are not recognized as war veterans in life, but they are in death—in other words, when they're buried. The minister responded to this by saying that he knew this wasn't true. He went on to say:

This legislation extended equal veterans rights to wartime merchant seamen. It provided them with the same rights to all the benefits that were currently available to the armed forces, not a few, not some, but all of the benefits.

So I share your frustration, because these are the direct responses we're getting from the ministry. This is obviously not right, when we go on to see what has been proposed in the upcoming legislation. That obviously wasn't right, because in his three points in his news release what he's saying they're proposing removes all doubt as to the status of veterans. Obviously they have in mind, hopefully, giving them full war veteran status and eligibility for exceptional incapacity allowances as well as removing barriers preventing survivors from getting certain disability pensions. So here again they're making some exceptions in this new legislation. That's encouraging, but it's frustrating to get repeated denials and then find out later that they actually are considering some things.

So with that in mind, I would like to ask you if we couldn't bottom-line the concerns in some basic, simple point form that we could understand too. In other words, I have four points here. I would like to ask if these four points would fairly represent what your concerns are.

First, they should be recognized as full war veterans. That's point one.

Second, there should be prisoner of war benefits.

Third, there should be fair compensation for years of denial of equality.

Fourth, there should be full recognition on ceremonial days.

As you can appreciate, my file is getting rather thick here too, but to make it crystal clear to the ministry, is that a fair rendering and assumption to make? Could you ballpark all of your concerns and put them under those four simple one-line categories? Of course, while each one would be explained in more depth, this would be a place and a point of reference to start. Could I ask any one of the four of you to respond to that, please?

Mr. Gordon Olmstead: Well, the recognition on ceremonial occasions...

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]...you this, as you recall, has been adequate and thorough. This is a fairly new departure.

Mr. Peter Goldring: All right.

Mr. Gordon Olmstead: On Remembrance Day, the Chief of the Defence Staff represents the armed forces and their recognition of the sacrifices of the war dead.

But if you turn to page 18 of my submission, you'll find a poem. I don't think I need to read it to you now.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I read it; it's very nice.

Mr. Gordon Olmstead: That expresses our concern. Part of that concern is that the merchant navy isn't replicating itself as do the armed forces. Within a very few years, fewer than I thought before, there will no nobody in Ottawa to lay a wreath for merchant seamen. We feel that it is incumbent on the Minister of Transport, who led us to where we are today, to remember the merchant navy and for the merchant navy to remember all war dead.

• 1005

With regard to POW benefits, I didn't bring in the papers again. I think the rates and the distribution were distributed by Mr. Morawski some time ago, so you all have them in hand. What we are asking for and have been asking for for years seems perfectly logical, that is, if 5% for a six-month period is good below 30 months, then it should be good above 30 months too, because that 33 months takes us back to Dieppe, and prison conditions were pretty poor before that.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Without getting into all of the details on what the compensation and the prisoner of war status is, I'm just shortforming it to four points that would kind of head it up, and from there the details on what you're looking for are in your submission.

I'd like to ask another question. There was a suggestion that your organization or you do not represent all of the merchant navy. In my discussions with other merchant navy organizations across the country, it seems to boil down to these four points. We could argue about whether it's 5%, 6%, or 3%, we could argue the numbers, and we could argue the technical aspects of it, but what seems to be not arguable is that these four points seem to be common concerns for all of the merchant navy. Your submission includes the technical details of it, but I think that rather than getting buried in all the technical details, I'd like to concentrate on these four headings here. I would like to ask about the technical part of it later.

Would it be fair to categorize the concerns into these four lines?

Prof. Foster Griezic: If I could respond to that, quite clearly those can be four main headings. With regard to the technical aspects you keep mentioning, for us they are examples that prove that those four categories can be expanded quite extensively, and I agree with that wholeheartedly.

In response to Mr. Wood's comment about not representing other merchant seamen, I've never professed, and neither has this organization professed, to represent all merchant seamen. The legion does not represent all veterans. The army, navy, and air force does not represent all, and I don't think they claim to do that. So I think that point has to be clarified.

What we're talking about is a group that wants to have recognition, and certainly we as a group, an organization, a coalition, do not deny that.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Exactly, and that's entirely understandable.

Prof. Foster Griezic: Okay.

Mr. Peter Goldring: But it would be fair—and I want to emphasize this—to categorize them under these four headings, and to state that from your experience the other merchant navy groups would also be fairly represented under these four categories?

Then I'll come to the bottom line. What is the bottom line? It was in the report here that one of the groups was suggesting that a fair compensation would be $30,000. I would like to know what your viewpoint would be on a bottom-line fair compensation settlement to square this issue away once and for all. What is the bottom-line number?

The Chairman: Could I ask for a very succinct answer, please, because Mr. Goldring is out of time. Professor Griezic.

• 1010

Prof. Foster Griezic: In my brief that I presented to you people plus to the government, we suggested $20,000. There's a host of categories we have. This could be much costlier for the government.

As Tom Brooks has pointed out, there are different ways of going about it. At $20,000 the government is getting a bargain. I just got a letter from a widow of a merchant seaman who asked that I send her $40,000 or $50,000. How do you gentlemen respond to that?

Mr. Peter Goldring: So is the request for $20,000?

Prof. Foster Griezic: Yes, that would be the bottom line.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you.

Prof. Foster Griezic: I would include in that, though, $40,000 for POWs—in other words, an additional $20,000.

Mr. Peter Goldring: On top.

Prof. Foster Griezic: Yes, and there's very few of them left.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Godin, do you have any questions?

[Translation]

Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Olmstead, Ms. Olmstead, I am pleased this morning to meet with you and with the members of your team. For me, this is a prime opportunity to go deeper into this issue.

Whoever you may represent, what is important for me is to try to understand what really happened at that time and to try and ensure equity for all Canadians.

I do not understand and it disturbs me. When you give your life for your country, whatever organization you may belong to, that is the ultimate sacrifice and that person should be treated in the same fashion as others.

I will be making comments rather than asking questions this morning. I will work on this file. I do not have all the documents. They are mostly in English and I will have them translated. Rest assured that I will contact you when it is ready. I believe we should be more insistent about hearing the war veterans from the Canadian Merchant Navy Association, who pretend that they do not agree with you. Let them appear before us and tell us why they disagree. It is very important, in order that we can once and for all in this great Canada ensure equity for all those who gave their life. I thank you for appearing here. It will give me arguments. Rest assured that I will try my best to seek equity for all Canadians. Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: I'm sorry, was there a question?

Mr. Maurice Godin: No.

The Chairman: Merci, Monsieur Godin.

Mr. Price.

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

Mr. Olmstead, Mr. Griezic, Mrs. MacDonald, and other members, I'm very happy to have you here today. Being new members, as quite a few of us are, we haven't heard all of the story before. We've heard certain versions, of course. I've probably heard a lot more because my leader at this point is Elsie Wayne and, as you know, she has been extremely involved. I think it's important we do hear directly from you, and I'd say as time goes on there's less and less chance for that to happen.

Looking through Mr. Olmstead's presentation, we see several places along the way where presentations have already been made to SCONDVA. That's one of the things I had suggested just a while back, that SCONDVA should really be a permanent joint committee so that this wouldn't have to happen all the time, that it wouldn't be necessary to make a presentation every time the government changes, let's say, because governments tend to have a short life. To me, that would make things easier.

I have some direct questions. In the beginning you mentioned that for the dependant's pension, in May 1947 only 28% had been compensated. Did the rest get compensated later? That was it? The other people who were left—

• 1015

Prof. Foster Griezic: I should qualify that. There was an increase of approximately 100 by 1950, and then that never increased. It moved to in excess of 500, and then that simply stayed stagnant until 1962 and Bill C-64. Again, the increase numerically was minuscule.

Mr. David Price: Okay. Right now, roughly how many merchant seamen are left, and how many of those were prisoners of war, in numbers? Have you any idea?

Mr. Gordon Olmstead: With dependants, there may be over 30 prisoners of war.

Mr. David Price: That's all?

Mr. Gordon Olmstead: That's all. That includes the Far East as well.

Prof. Foster Griezic: For the total merchant navy group, there are perhaps 2,400. It's likely less than that because every three days one dies, and as their age increases, that number is going to increase.

Mr. David Price: You brought up another very interesting point. You said 40% were from Quebec.

Prof. Foster Griezic: That was astonishing. On February 7, Mr. Howe made that announcement on CBC national radio when he was making his speech to commemorate the losses. Wartime propaganda notwithstanding, that was an incredible comment for him to make. The government then, at the end of the war, forgot that totally.

It's the same sort of thing with the wages, and as Gordon has cited, that mythology has to be destroyed totally.

I have here a copy of a wage scale by a merchant seaman who, throughout the entire six years of the war, was paid—do you know how much?—$3,521.02 for six years of war! He also was able then to receive, in 1946, a special bonus, which was 10%, or $352.10. He received two cheques, one for $200 and another one for $152.10.

Mr. David Price: On page 13 you said that the Department of Transport would not admit loss through disappearance at sea until more than one year had elapsed, and then after one year they couldn't make a claim anyway. Did that ever get settled in any way?

Prof. Foster Griezic: Yes, it did. As Gordon noted in his presentation, it was changed, but that only happened later on.

A voice: Can Gordon then speak?

Mr. Gordon Olmstead: That was presented, and how many of these people would read the Gazette 20 years later?

Mr. David Price: Okay, it got settled 20 years later, but there was no compensation for people who had already...

Mr. Gordon Olmstead: No.

Prof. Foster Griezic: There was no retroactivity for this thing, and that's one of the real problems. There is no retroactivity in place.

In workers' compensation, the stuff that was introduced after the war, in 1945, there was no retroactivity to this, so that what they should have been getting during the war they got after the war, but there was nothing for when in fact they were injured during the war. So they were dead-ended. There was nothing they could do about it.

Mr. David Price: Another statement here that really puzzled me is that when Mr. Chadderton testified to the standing committee, he said: “I want to say first that the present coverage for merchant seamen is not at all bad”.

Prof. Foster Griezic: Can I respond to that one, Gordon?

Mr. Gordon Olmstead: Yes.

Prof. Foster Griezic: Mr. Chadderton said a lot of things. Number one, he said that these guys didn't want to be called veterans, which is totally wrong. He also said that he represented merchant seamen.

He also said he was there at the time. I checked, and I had a graduate student check. Mr. Chadderton's name does not appear at all in 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948, 1952, and 1958. These are years in which the standing select committees appeared.

He claims he was there in 1962 for Bill C-64. He appeared there as part of a group representing the war amps, and he was there as a replacement for another group. He did not say one word—not one word—about the merchant navy. That's on record.

• 1020

Mr. David Price: But he's at present supporting the—

Prof. Foster Griezic: It's this other group that's fracturing away. Yes, there's no question about that.

Mr. David Price: But he has no tie to your group in any way.

Prof. Foster Griezic: No. Anyhow, it's a touchy situation. It's a difficult one, and it has to do with Mr. Chadderton. He's a very powerful man. He's very outspoken. People have said that when they take on Mr. Chadderton, they watch their backs.

Mr. David Price: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

I'll go to the government members for 10 minutes. Mr. Wood.

Mr. Bob Wood: Mr. Price is absolutely right that it makes it very difficult to deal with anything, Mr. Griezic and Mr. Olmstead, when everything is factional. You understand that. Obviously, everybody is kind of split up and going their own way, which is kind of too bad.

Mr. Olmstead, I've been over the debates in the House of Commons and the committee minutes from 1992, when Bill C-84 was tabled and passed. I was really surprised to find out that there was almost no mention of retroactive compensation in any of those debates. When I asked a veterans department official about it, I was told that retroactivity was not even an issue in 1992.

I guess my question would be, why was the issue of compensation not raised in 1992, yet now there's a demand for a public apology and thousands of dollars of compensation? Many members on the Liberal side fought to pass Bill C-84, including the current minister, Mr. Proud, and myself. So I'm wondering what changed since 1992.

Mr. Gordon Olmstead: You just heard Mr. Price's question and the discussion: we were represented by Mr. Chadderton. We thought we were doing very well.

We didn't have a seat at the table. We had no say whatsoever.

Since that time, over a period of several years, we have been recognized as spokesmen for the merchant navy by Veterans Affairs. They are working on the bill now that would take the direct discrimination out of Bill C-84 to a large extent. We've had a meeting of the minds on that.

Would you mind if...? I haven't seen the letter you quoted from this other group.

Mr. Bob Wood: No, I don't mind at all, if you're more than willing to... I just got the letter a little while ago. It makes it very difficult to know who you're dealing with and who represents whom. I'm not being mean or derogatory by that at all.

Mr. Gordon Olmstead: No, there's a reason they're not in the group. They didn't ask to become part of the group of veterans associations that we joined together. There are four of us. There's the Canadian Merchant Navy Veterans Association, Merchant Navy Association, Canadian Merchant Navy Prisoner of War Association, and Company of Master Mariners of Canada. Now, this group to which you referred didn't ask to come and be part of the group. They said they were taking the place of one of our groups. They didn't come and ask to join in and become part of the action. They wanted to throw these people out and put themselves in. We didn't feel that was an appropriate thing to do.

Mr. Bob Wood: No, that's fine.

Prof. Foster Griezic: Perhaps I could elucidate briefly on that, Mr. Wood. There's a division within this group. Each one is contending that they represent the largest number of paid-up membership. All the coalition has done is ask them to find out from their membership which one is the valid one, the legal one. One has legal status at this point; this group does not. We've asked them to do that not in any sense of trying to oppose them but just to clarify this for ourselves and for you people, because it makes it an extremely difficult situation to deal with. We understand that.

Mr. Bob Wood: Yes.

• 1025

Prof. Foster Griezic: This has happened in the past with the merchant navy groups. There have been fragmentations. For example, right after the war there was a Canadian Merchant Navy Veterans Association, and I suggested that they should not use that title for it simply because the chap who led it absconded with $12,000 in 1959 and the organization died. With that kind of background historically, you want to say let's go with a name that is a little bit cleaner.

Mr. Bob Wood: But this other group, Mr. Olmstead and Mr. Griezic, is obviously the most vocal. They were here. They were part of the hunger strike by some of the members, as you know.

I'm interested in your comments, Mr. Olmstead, on these tactics. I agree with the men's right to peacefully protest, as everybody in this room does, but we're concerned about the hunger strike tactic. First of all, I believe it needlessly endangers the men's health. Secondly, I don't agree with the ultimatum of “Give us the money or we'll die on the steps of Parliament”, because it creates an impossible situation and it backs the government into a corner.

I'd rather have these veterans come before this committee and state their case. We've invited them to do so. I don't think they're going to come. I don't know. Who knows?

However, if they still don't get everything they want, I'm afraid that they're going to stop eating again. As I said, it's an impossible situation. I think everybody here worries about these men's health, and I'm concerned, like everybody else, about avoiding that sort of situation.

So if you could, I want to hear what Mr. Olmstead has to say about this hunger strike tactic.

The Chairman: Mr. Olmstead.

Mr. Gordon Olmstead: We had no part in it. We understand their concerns, these people who are in the time when the last veterans' benefits available are for palliative care with a means test. We can hardly criticize them. These were people who were denied basic literacy after the war. They were denied an education and a means to earn a living. On the east coast I had a gentlemen come to me after a meeting that I addressed and asked if I had been talking about these people on the east coast. He said it showed down to the second generation of these people. He had lived there. They were denied any part in the prosperity of the post-war period. So how can you criticize them? But as you have mentioned, we don't find it a desirable tactic.

Mr. Bob Wood: I have just one more question. It's my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, sir, that not all of the merchant navy organizations and associations have seen the draft of the new omnibus bill. From conversations I have had with vets who have seen the proposed legislation, most seem very positive and complimentary of the bill. The minister has gone on record as saying that the bill will be put before the House before the end of the year. Today you and Dr. Griezic raised some other issues. I'm wondering how you think things should proceed. Are you suggesting that maybe the bill should be further delayed?

Mr. Gordon Olmstead: No, that bill should go ahead. But it is an omnibus bill, and it doesn't cover money.

Mr. Bob Wood: No, it doesn't.

Mr. Gordon Olmstead: And there should be a bill to cover the compensation.

Mr. Bob Wood: A separate bill.

Mr. Gordon Olmstead: Yes. Now, one of the problems we have with Veterans Affairs is that they have great difficulty in working on two things at once. I have decided they can't walk and chew gum at the same time. So Minister Mifflin has a problem.

The Chairman: Can I go to—

Prof. Foster Griezic: I have just one other point that I'd like quickly to make.

The Chairman: Be very quick, Professor, because there are members who want to ask questions.

Prof. Foster Griezic: I will be.

Mr. Wood, in relation to the conversation, I admit to being the person responsible for that. But also Mr.—

Mr. Peter Goldring: I have a point of order. Could we have a copy of that draft report tabled, please, for our information, so that—

Mr. Bob Wood: What draft report?

Mr. Peter Goldring: The legislation.

Mr. Bob Wood: No, you can't.

Mr. Peter Goldring: That's the one you just referred to, and you said that many groups have seen it.

• 1030

Mr. Bob Wood: Yes, they have.

Mr. Peter Goldring: And I would like to see it.

Mr. Bob Wood: But to my knowledge no members of Parliament have seen it.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Well, I'd like it on record that I asked to see it.

Mr. Bob Wood: Yes, sure, you can ask for it.

The Chairman: The request was made, and the parliamentary secretary has indicated that there's a problem with that.

Perhaps we can briefly go back to the professor, and then I'll turn to Mr. Proud, who has been waiting patiently.

Prof. Foster Griezic: There are two things. About the compensation, that compensation issue may not have appeared in the House of Commons in 1992, but it definitely appeared prior to that. I wrote about it in my first article back in 1988. Mr. Chadderton wrote about it in one of his many briefs he presented to the government in 1991. They're both on record. So it's not something new.

It is certainly new from this time period, and I, for better or for worse, have to take responsibility for jogging their minds about that thing.

With regard to the second point about the legislation, although it's considered not to be a money bill, that legislation is in fact a money bill. There will be expenditures, because I know merchant seamen who are going to be getting benefits from that bill, from the corrections we've made on it. And that bill should be passed, there's no question about it.

We would like you gentlemen to pass a resolution requesting the minister to set a date to discuss compensation. That would include all merchant seamen and their groups. Do you people have the power to do it? We don't. We have all written to them requesting that. We have not yet had a response.

The Chairman: Thank you, Professor. Thank you, Mr. Wood.

I'd like to go to Mr. Proud for a couple of brief questions, because we're almost out of time.

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

Mr. Olmstead, Mr. Griezic, Mrs. Olmstead, and Mrs. MacDonald, it's good to see you here again today. I've had the opportunity to hear you people many times on this issue. I could listen, as David said, all day to these historical facts. I've heard many of them. Mr. Griezic always seems to have new ones when he comes forward, and they're always very historical and very interesting.

I would like to discuss a couple of things. First of all, my involvement in Bill C-84 was back at the beginning, and we know that when the bill passed there was some rejoicing but not a whole lot. It wasn't utopia, and we knew that at the time.

There were several issues, as far as I can remember. One was the dangerous waters versus the high seas. The other was the veterans' status, that is, instead of just being called veterans, they're called merchant navy veterans. Again, the only thing I remember was that at the time we talked about retroactivity. Mr. Benjamin mentioned a $500 clothing allowance.

However, that bill was passed. There were some happy folks around the Hill the night the bill became law. We went on from there to see other things.

As far as retroactivity goes, the compensation you're looking for, we can pass motions here until we're blue in the face, that's for sure, and we have the power to do that. What becomes of it is another thing.

You mentioned in your first presentation, Mr. Griezic, about the foreign affairs committee passing the thing on the prisoners of Hong Kong. So these are all things that are before us. However, on your long fight to get some recognition, I'd just like you to answer, if you would, a few questions. It goes back to the time this all began.

We all agree that it probably should have happened in 1945. It didn't. I assume that some of you were involved in that fight for recognition. You mentioned Mr. Chadderton. From that time forward, were those groups active in supporting you to become veterans and to get veteran status and to get the compensation you so rightfully deserved? Was the legion one of the stalwarts behind you, making sure this became a reality?

If they were—and if they weren't, I wonder why they weren't—in your opinion, Mr. Olmstead especially and anyone else who wants to answer—why do you think it took from 1945 to 1992 to get some type of recognition? You did get some benefits prior to that. If you got hurt on a ship as a direct result of enemy fire or whatever the case may be, you did get something. But by and large you didn't receive any benefits until 1992. Could you give me a quick summation as to why you think that didn't happen? Was it just the government, or were there other groups involved that didn't want to see you get veteran status?

• 1035

Mr. Gordon Olmstead: The veterans groups didn't support us and they editorialized on it. There were legion editorials; I don't have them in front of me, but there were a couple of editorials—

Mr. George Proud: So they didn't in any way at all.

Mr. Gordon Olmstead: And in 1988 when the Canada service only were brought in, no one in the veterans groups even mentioned the merchant navy.

The Chairman: Mr. Proud, there is time if you have one additional question.

Mr. George Proud: That's fine. I just wanted to get that on the record. Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Prof. Foster Griezic: Since 1994, when we were before this committee and I asked this committee to get the legion to sit down and talk to the merchant navy group, they had one meeting on April 22 and then simply said we don't have to meet any more.

The Chairman: Last question, Mr. Proud, and then I have Mr. Goldring.

Mr. George Proud: To follow up on what you mentioned about the involvement of you people in Remembrance Day services, with this relationship with the legion, who are the people who control this? Do you think there's any way you can convince them that you should be part of it? That's where it lands. That's where it all happens. It's not the government. It's nobody else. They organize that.

Mr. Gordon Olmstead: I don't know.

The Chairman: We don't like to say that as politicians sometimes, but it is the most honest answer sometimes, isn't it?

Thank you very much, Mr. Proud.

Mr. George Proud: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: I'll go to Mr. Goldring for a five-minute round, and then I would remind the committee members that we do have a brief topic of business on future items for the committee to look over at the end.

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

I want to talk about the difficulty not only in identifying what the concerns are, because there are several groups and organizations involved, and who it was...and that's why I was emphasizing bringing it under four major categories of concerns, because there has been a difficulty. We experienced a difficulty here just a minute ago, in that I'm left out of the loop of information of what's going on by not having a copy of this draft so that I can examine it and see what is coming down the pipe, what has been agreed to and understood. So right off the bat, I'm out of the loop. I don't have that information.

There's also the difficulty of trying to coordinate the opposition parties. We've put out two letters to all the opposition parties, and all of the groups and organizations, to get together to have a common meeting so that we can come up with common concerns. I didn't get so much as one opposition party member even responding to my letters.

So already we have a concern with our opposition parties. We can't get together. We can't get the information from the minister. We can't get together with the opposition, and we can't get together with all the groups. So that's why it's ultra important here to have this bottom line and common list of claims so that we can look at it very succinctly, very clearly, and then hopefully we can have the other groups and organizations totally agreeing too.

This has been a problem all the way through. It's not just with your organizations that we have a feeling it's not totally together. We're not together; it is a problem all the way around. I wanted to emphasize very clearly that this has been a concern, and I'm very pleased to hear that you have bottom-lined it at the $20,000. Those are the four concerns; and you can ballpark everything in it, but the bottom line is the $20,000 claim on it.

I would like to have you emphasize again to me and respond: in your firm belief, representing the people you do and the understanding from the other groups, are they in agreement that it is a bottom line? Do you feel they will be satisfied with it?

The Chairman: To Mr. Olmstead?

Mr. Peter Goldring: Yes, to Mr. Olmstead.

Mr. Gordon Olmstead: The members of the four organizations that currently comprise our group have been involved and are satisfied.

Mr. Peter Goldring: A follow-up comment is that I understand that the merchant navy has been well recognized in other countries—in the United States, in England and in Australia. And of course, when we were together on that wonderful pilgrimage, that very significant one to Liverpool for the Battle of the Atlantic ceremonies, it was very obvious that the merchant navy organizations in England are very respectful, and well represented too.

• 1040

Maybe you could comment on that, too. Are these concerns that have been addressed by these other countries in the past?

Prof. Foster Griezic: They definitely have.

Great Britain, for example, recognized their merchant seamen as war veterans in 1940. Immediately after the war, Australia passed legislation recognizing them, and then got rid of that special legislation and put them under legislation with their military veterans. The United States did the same thing in 1988.

Mr. Peter Goldring: So we're the one country left out.

Prof. Foster Griezic: We're the one country left out of the loop.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you.

Prof. Foster Griezic: There is an excellent article about the war memorial, and I spoke to Mr. Price about this. Canada does not have a war memorial to the merchant navy. There is a magnificent one in Great Britain. There is also one in Australia, and one in the United States. Canada, again, misses out. It shouldn't be the private sector doing it. These guys were the responsibility of the Canadian government. The Canadian government should do it and find the money.

Mr. Peter Goldring: We'll talk about that after.

The Chairman: Thank you, Professor.

Mr. Bob Wood: On a point of order—

The Chairman: I would encourage you to stay to the question asked, please, because we have a number of questioners that I have to try to get to.

I have a point of order now.

Mr. Bob Wood: I have a point of order on Mr. Goldring's comment about the bill. It's common practice that when we do draft a bill, we consult on the certain aspects of the bill with certain groups. These people don't see the finished product. It doesn't mean that the bill is out there for MPs to look at. It's being drafted as we speak, and it's part of the consultation process to make sure we have things in the bill that are acceptable, and nobody will have seen it.

Mr. Peter Goldring: If I could comment on that, please—

The Chairman: If I might, from the chair, I don't want to enter into a debate, and I appreciate the clarification.

Mr. Bob Wood: I haven't seen the bill.

The Chairman: In conferring with the clerk, I want to indicate to the witnesses that I think it's very fair. Mr. Goldring raised a very important point, and on a point of order, Mr. Wood has clarified.

Mr. Bob Wood: Yes.

The Chairman: The clerk can clarify directly, if you wish, but what Mr. Wood said is common practice here. Indeed, we confer widely across Canada and overseas on the standing committee report, and yet until it was tabled it was not in any way public information and no other members of the House of Commons would have seen that report.

So on this point of order, Mr. Goldring—not in debate, please.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I was mentioning that particularly from the comments the minister was making to me in that he hoped his bill would have our support, too, when it comes through. So if he is commenting to me about having my support to it, perhaps there should have been some consultation with us, too.

The Chairman: Thank you.

That concludes Mr. Goldring's five minutes. Five minutes goes very quickly, so perhaps we could have succinct questions and succinct answers.

[Translation]

Mr. Godin, please, for five minutes.

Mr. Maurice Godin: I have two questions to ask. Perhaps the Chair will be able to answer. I would like to know whether there is an organizational chart of all these organizations representing veterans. Is there such a thing? Also, I would like to know the name of all organizations that receive financial support from the government. Lastly, Messrs Olmstead and Griezic, does your group receive financial support from the government?

[English]

Mr. Gordon Olmstead: We receive no government money.

Prof. Foster Griezic: We receive none whatsoever.

[Translation]

Let me explain the situation roughly. There are people who have received $9,000 per year until 1996. After that, the government has cut that subsidy. However, we have never received one cent.

[English]

We received not a penny.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Godin.

Mr. Maurice Godin: If I understood you correctly, the organizational chart does exist and you will be able to provide it to us.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Wood, can you comment on that as parliamentary secretary?

You're looking for what, Monsieur Godin?

[Translation]

Mr. Maurice Godin: An organizational chart of all veteran organizations. Does it exist somewhere?

[English]

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Bob Wood: I'm sure we do. I've never seen it, but I'm sure there is one, and if Mr. Godin would like, I don't think there is a problem in getting him one.

• 1045

The Chairman: We'll endeavour to ask Mr. Wood to provide that. It's a timely question, because as the committee knows—

Prof. Foster Griezic: Can I just—

The Chairman: Please let me finish, Professor. If you wouldn't interrupt me, as the chair, I would really, really appreciate it. They tell me that when I'm up here, I'm running the meeting. I'm trying to be fair and give everybody an opportunity.

Now, Mr. Godin has raised a very important point that I wish to comment on. The committee has said that its next priority for several meetings will be issues on veterans, so I think your question about an organizational chart is very timely. Mr. Wood has undertaken to provide that to us, and he will do that. I appreciate your question.

Now briefly, Professor, we'll go to you, and then I've another question.

Prof. Foster Griezic: I'm sorry, Mr. O'Brien, I do apologize for that.

The Chairman: That's all right.

Prof. Foster Griezic: Veterans Affairs does have a list of the various organizations. Now they're going to have two CMNVAs. But they do have a list, so that can be provided for Mr. Godin and really for all the committee as well.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. We appreciate that.

Now we have Mr. Price for five minutes.

Mr. David Price: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have one point of clarification and one short question.

The legion doesn't support you, yet it does recognize you as veterans, doesn't it?

Mr. Gordon Olmstead: They're in a transition period, I would say. They have their internal differences as well.

Mr. David Price: In terms of members of the legion, do they not accept you as that?

Mr. Gordon Olmstead: Oh yes.

Mr. David Price: So they do recognize you in that sense.

Mr. Gordon Olmstead: We're number 65 on their list.

Mr. David Price: Okay. In one way, you're recognized as veterans to be legion members, but on the other hand, you're not recognized as full veterans.

Mr. Gordon Olmstead: We're not recognized in the context of Remembrance Day.

Mr. David Price: That's what I was wondering.

On the other side of that, from what I understand, you would like to be recognized by the Minister of Transport on Remembrance Day as a separate entity.

Mr. Gordon Olmstead: He would appear to be the appropriate one.

Prof. Foster Griezic: I just have a problem with using the term “as a separate entity”. To me, they were the fourth arm of the fighting services. That's been documented extensively.

Mr. David Price: Yes, this is what I'm getting at. As a separate entity—

Prof. Foster Griezic: If that's you mean, then, Mr. Price, I agree with you completely.

Mr. David Price: I mean the army, navy, air force, and merchant marine.

Prof. Foster Griezic: Yes, thank you.

Mr. David Price: But in this case, the wreath basically would be presented by the Minister of Transport rather than the Minister of Veterans Affairs or Minister of Defence.

Prof. Foster Griezic: Yes, because it's an anomaly to say that they're being represented by the head of the military, because they're not military. They have never contended to be so. They were paramilitary. That's what they said they were.

Mr. David Price: They're veterans, but not military veterans.

Prof. Foster Griezic: Exactly. They're war veterans.

Mr. David Price: They're war veterans.

Prof. Foster Griezic: Yes.

Mr. David Price: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Price, for your succinct questions.

The last five minutes go to Mr. Pratt. Then we have some organizational matters before we adjourn. Mr. Pratt.

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

I'm still trying to grapple with this issue of the ceremonial aspect and where the principal concerns lie. I'm hearing different things. It's on Mr. Goldring's list as one of four items of concern. Could you just provide me with a summary of the issues related to the ceremonial aspect of the merchant navy's concerns?

Mr. Gordon Olmstead: What I expressed was a concern—this is not the primary concern—that there will not be any merchant navy veterans to lay a wreath and that the merchant navy will be totally forgotten.

Now, because the Chief of the Defence Staff lays a wreath in memory of war dead, that represents recognition by the armed services. The Ministry of Transport was our administrative control throughout the war. It was totally responsible for our rehabilitation benefits and such, so they should still have that responsibility of representing the merchant navy.

Perhaps Foster has a comment.

Prof. Foster Griezic: What Gordon said is correct. In 1942, they were recognized and represented by Transport.

• 1050

As for what we'd like to see, the legion keeps saying... I would point out that the legion is in transition. They certainly are coming along and being far more supportive, if I can use that term, of the merchant navy's demands. The second-to-last issue of Legion magazine demonstrated that clearly.

For this ceremony, there was a precedent set in 1994 with the designation and commemoration of the Book of Remembrance. The legion only did it after the intervention basically of the government and the public outcry. But they said at that time that it would not set a precedent, giving a totally new meaning to the term “precedent.” They said it did not set one.

All the merchant navy groups are asking for is to have someone represent them, not as an association but in fact as part of the paramilitary war veterans they were. I don't think that's an unfair request on their part. It doesn't separate them from anything. It doesn't give them special status in any sense. But at this point, they're included with the Boy Scouts at the end of the ceremony.

The Chairman: We understand that point.

I might remind the committee and Mr. Pratt—this is not to take his time—that Mr. Chadderton will be appearing before this committee and the legion has requested to appear. So these very good questions can also be posed directly to them.

So we'll go back to you, Mr. Pratt.

Mr. David Pratt: Just from a ceremonial point of view, then, if the Minister of Transport were to lay a wreath on behalf of the merchant navy, would that wipe clean the slate in terms of the ceremonial concerns?

Mr. Gordon Olmstead: Yes.

Mr. David Pratt: That's from your standpoint. We don't know about the other merchant navy organizations that exist out there, but from your standpoint, would that do the trick?

Prof. Foster Griezic: Ceremonially, I would have to agree with Gordon. I would like to like to think so, at any rate.

I think the other merchant seamen... I would point out that there are more merchant seamen who are not part of organizations than there are in them. That's not an uncommon situation, I would point out, in organizations and associations.

Mr. David Pratt: Actually, I don't have a quick last question. My other questions would take up a lot more time.

The Chairman: I appreciate that.

Mr. and Mrs. Olmstead, Ms. MacDonald, Professor Griezic, and all those others in attendance, thank you very much for being here today and for reviewing a very emotional and important issue with us. We appreciate your efforts, especially those of Mr. Olmstead with his health challenges. We thank you very much for being here. We appreciate it. Thank you.

For the committee, before we adjourn, if you would look at the list of possible SCONDVA studies that the clerk provided to you previously, we have four items. Our next series of meetings will focus on veterans issues. Then we have the future of the reserves as an item, the revolution in military affairs, equipment procurement, and combat readiness. We need to put these in some order of priority as a committee.

Mr. Price.

Mr. David Price: Say we look at the last item in group three, which is the meeting with the Canadian Defence Industries Association and other interested groups. I would suggest that maybe this should be one of the first things we do before we look at all the rest in the revolution in military affairs and the process of equipment procurement.

The Chairman: You're proposing topic three as a first priority?

Mr. David Price: Well, I'm suggesting the end of topic three. If we start there, it gives us an idea. They're going to present to us what's going on and probably what we should be looking at. It would give us a good idea of which direction we should be going in.

The Chairman: I think Mr. Pratt raised that issue too.

Okay. There's a suggestion from Mr. Price that meeting with CDIA should be our first order of business. Are there any comments or objections to that? Okay, we'll do that.

Shall we deal with the rest of item three, then, or would it make sense to go into RMA, which is the revolution in military affairs?

Mr. Pratt.

Mr. David Pratt: Well, we may be able to kill two birds with one stone that way, at least in part as it relates to RMA. I had suggested, Mr. Chair, that the vice-president of Computing Devices Canada is the president of the Canadian Defence Industries Association, which was prepared to invite us out to their facility. So we could talk about defence industry issues as well as RMA issues at the same time.

• 1055

The Chairman: Can I propose we put category three and then two? Monsieur Laurin.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Chairman, it would be important to make sure there is no duplication.

[English]

The Chairman: If I could have the committee's indulgence here, we are trying to tee up the future business of the committee. I need your cooperation for another three or four minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin, please.

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Chairman, I believe it would be important to make sure that we are not duplicating the work of the Public Accounts Committee. That committee will certainly examine chapters 3 and 4 of the April's report from the Auditor General. The Public Accounts Committee always examine each and every chapter of the Auditor General's report. If two committees are hearing the Auditor General on the same issue, there is a problem. However, it seems important to me that we deal with this issue and put aside one sitting for it. Perhaps we should have a different line of questioning in order to avoid any duplication.

Moreover, Mr. Chairman, I believe that it would be important to deal on a priority basis with the contract for the Cormoran search and rescue helicopters, because the government is about to order a new batch of helicopters. If there are any conclusions to draw or any lessons to learn from the first experience, it is that we must examine the matter before everything is cast in stone.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Monsieur Laurin. I appreciate those comments.

I think there was a request for a briefing by the Auditor General to this committee on chapter 3. Monsieur Rossignol, can you comment on that?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Rossignol: I believe that at the last meeting, you had asked for at least one briefing from the Auditor General. That could be part of the study. It would not be the same thing as the study by the Public Accounts Committee. It could be a briefing on the data from the two chapters dealing with equipping the forces and the acquisition of major capital equipment.

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Chairman, it is important that we do have a briefing, but we should not think that it would be the beginning and the end of our study. The briefing should be only the beginning. Based on that briefing, we will decide what other witnesses we may want to hear in committee in order to go deeper into the issue. Do I understand that correctly?

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, thank you.

So what I've heard from the committee is we're going to deal with category three first, especially with the Canadian Defence Industries Association, and then look at revolution in military affairs. What would be next—the future of the reserves possibly third, and then combat readiness fourth, including the briefing? Is that acceptable to everybody?

Okay, thank you.

David.

Mr. David Price: Is our trip to Veterans Affairs scheduled yet?

The Chairman: That isn't scheduled yet, but we want to do that as a priority item. Of course, before any of this there are several meetings on Veterans Affairs.

Mr. David Price: Yes, but that was in order to get us ready for it.

The Chairman: Right. There are requests coming in from witnesses, such as a request from the reserves. We'll try to accommodate their timing, which is before Christmas. We'll deal with it in this order, as I hear the committee: category three first, category two second, category one third, and category four fourth. Is that agreeable?

Mr. David Price: Yes.

The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned.