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, March 23, 1999

• 1529

[English]

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

Colleagues, we have two witnesses who have followed our procedure and requested to appear. I understand there are some other people who may be interested. Maybe I can start the meeting this way. Of course we have a procedure we have to follow, in fairness to everybody, and if a person or group wishes to appear before the committee, they certainly have the right to do that, but it's not as simple as just walking in and saying it that day. However, if there are people who'd like to, and if there's time.... I don't want to shortchange these witnesses or the members' questions, but if there's time and there are other people, then I will let the committee decide.

• 1530

But if those people aren't heard today and if they wish to appear, then I would encourage them to follow our normal procedure and write to the clerk, and we will do our best to schedule them, because we want to make sure, in hearing about this important issue, that no group or individual who wishes to appear will be overlooked.

With that explanation, just before we go to the witnesses, I would ask the committee's indulgence for a second and mention to you that we discussed our potential plans for some task-oriented travel around the issue of procurement, and I asked the opposition parties, if they would, to ensure that their House leadership is supportive of such trips. I wonder if I can ask each member, starting with Mr. Hart, if they have had that opportunity. This is just so that we know where we stand before we ask the clerk and our researchers to undertake considerable work to draw up the details of that trip. So can we ask each member, starting with Mr. Hart, if the parties are agreeable and so on?

Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): I sent a letter to both the House leader and the whip, and I also made representation to the chief defence critic. From every indication I have, there would be no problem with these trips.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Hart.

So we have the Reform Party commitment that they would be supportive of those trips that we discussed a couple of meetings ago.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin, who represents the Bloc Québécois, have you looked into that?

Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): No problem.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, so we have support from the Bloc Québécois.

Mr. Earle.

[Translation]

Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): No problem.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you.

So the NDP is indicating full support for the trips that we tentatively approved recently.

Mr. Price for the Progressive Conservative Party.

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): As for the PC Party, anything to do with the committee travelling we feel is very important, and we'll be part of it.

The Chairman: Okay. Thank you very much.

I know the majority members feel that way, and I'm happy that all the members of the committee are indicating full support of the parties for the trips that were discussed to study the issue of procurement. Obviously our staff here have heard that, and I would ask them now to begin the preliminary work to get us ready for those trips when our schedule permits.

Thank you very much. Now we're going to go to the witnesses.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin, on a point of order.

Mr. René Laurin: I have a question about the dates of the upcoming trip.

Could we please be informed of the possible dates before the final decision is made? Meetings with other delegations are already scheduled; more specifically, there is one in June on veterans, and I would find it unfortunate if the dates of the trip conflicted with other commitments.

[English]

The Chairman: Yes, that's a very good point. I would ask the staff to come up with some possible dates for us. They know what our commitments at committee are. We certainly want to see this issue through, if at all possible, before we interrupt it in any way, except we may have to take a break for estimates when the Minister of National Defence is available. So maybe in the near future we can get a report back from the whips with possible dates for the trips, projecting what our business will be.

Thank you. That's a very good point.

Mr. Price.

Mr. David Price: In relation to that, we should keep in mind the NATO Parliamentary Association, which many of the members of SCONDVA are already on and do attend. That's at the end of May.

• 1535

The Chairman: Thank you very much for that reminder. Maybe the staff can come back with some proposals for us.

I appreciate the indulgence of the witnesses while we cleared up some important business that's been outstanding.

We're here to hear the thoughts of these two witnesses on the issue of compensation, or potential compensation, for the merchant mariners. We'll start with the Merchant Navy Coalition for Equality.

Mr. William Bruce, are you going to start, sir?

Mr. William Bruce (Canadian Merchant Navy Veterans Association; Merchant Navy Coalition for Equality): Yes, sir.

The Chairman: Welcome to the committee. We're happy to hear your submission, and the members will ask questions when you're finished.

Mr. William Bruce: Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. Chairman and honourable members of the standing committee, my name is William Bruce. I am grateful and thank you sincerely for the opportunity to be before you, to meet you parliamentarians, our representatives, in the hope of seeing a satisfactory conclusion to the outstanding injustice against Canada's merchant seamen that has gone on far too long. I had the pleasure of doing this on June 3, 1993 in support of my merchant navy POW shipmates.

I would like to introduce a few people who are at the hearing today. George Shaker is a witness along with me; he's here with his wife Yvette. Mr. Gordon Olmstead wanted to come, but he couldn't. Mrs. Dorothy Olmstead is here with her son Donald, who would like to see how these committees work, as his dad has appeared before them very often.

Allan MacIsaac is chair of the MCE and president of the CMNVA. As you know, we represent the largest number of wartime merchant seamen of the merchant navy associations.

Bill Riddell from the Merchant Navy Association isn't here, but you know him. Tom Brooks, master mariner, is a former interim coalition chair. Mr. and Mrs. John Vernie are here. Mr. Fred Enderoff is here from the Naval Officers' Association and has been most supportive.

Mrs. Muriel MacDonald is the coalition's executive director, whom you have met. Professor Foster Griezic is an adjunct professor of Canadian history at Carleton University and has been the coalition's MS adviser and consultant for more than a decade, as you well know.

My shipmates, Cliff Craig and Vic Fouve, are survivors of the torpedoed and sunk SS Point Pleasant Park, February 23, 1945. Mr. Everett Arsenault of Terrebonne, also of the Point Pleasant Park, wanted to be here, but is unable to attend because of ill health. And Mr. Jim Murray is here from the Canadian Merchant Navy Prisoner of War Association.

My final point before presenting my brief is this. The Royal Canadian Legion Dominion Command made a presentation on Thursday, March 18. I was disappointed and angry at the brief. They have not supported us in the past. They have not let us be regular legion members. I know; I'm one of those merchant seamen they didn't let in. So is my shipmate, John Gill of Greenfield Park, Quebec. They wouldn't let him in either.

They say they support us now, yet they want to bring in the ferry command and others. That's nonsense. They say they speak for the merchant navy. We don't speak for the legion. Why are they trying to revert to the problems that were created in 1991 through their CON group, when they were doing the same thing? It's disgusting.

I just want that to be on record. They met with us so that we could work together. Why are they not working with us?

• 1540

I'm here before you to emphasize what I see as Bill C-61's weaknesses and to make a few recommendations on how you might correct the merchant navy situation before we all die.

I also want to illustrate how we were recruited to join and obliged to serve as members of a training school. This is directly tied to Bill C-61, which will amend the restrictive, exclusive, and narrow Bill C-84, which it will replace.

Part of the reason I am before you today is that although the Honourable Mr. Merrithew, the then Minister of Veterans Affairs, promised that the merchant navy would be equal to our military war comrades by Bill C-84, we were not.

Indeed, his successor, the Honourable Kim Campbell, in a letter of April 8, 1993, stated that we were only to be given access to some of the benefits and services. In another letter of April 30, 1993, she admitted that the merchant seamen's eligibility for pension benefits was to be as close to wartime military eligibility as possible, not equal.

As well, the definition of “service”, she admitted, was circumscribed so as not to include training at Prescott, at St. Margaret's, at gunnery school, when travelling to catch a ship as instructed, or in manning pools or when we sailed in coastal waters where ships were torpedoed and sunk by Nazi U-boats and Canadians were killed. I took the service training, but for some reason it doesn't count.

Now Bill C-61 will correct some of the gaps and complaints of the merchant navy. We will finally be officially recognized as war veterans, since we'll be placed under the War Veterans Allowance Act, though some military veterans said it couldn't be done. Similarly, we will be put under the Pension Act. Again, some military veteran leaders said it couldn't be done.

The merchant navy will be recognized as a service, and all the service time will be recognized so that we'll finally have the same access to some, although reduced, benefits that our military comrades received.

But there are serious gaps in the legislation. Before mentioning them, let me point out why we merchant seamen merit this legislation and the ex gratia compensation, which is absent from this legislation, and why our POWs must have all their time in prison of war camps accepted, recognized, and pensioned by the government—something that is also absent from the legislation.

We are wartime veterans. I was recruited into the merchant navy as a teenager. I felt obliged to serve Canada. I tried to enlist in the army. I was rejected because of defective vision in my right eye. While walking in Montreal's Central Railway station, I saw a sign stating, “Canada needs you. Join the merchant navy.” Wanting to serve my country, I did. I volunteered.

I was sent to the Merchant Navy Marine Engineering School in Prescott, Ontario. I spent three months there taking a course on boilers, engines, and pumps. The government paid me the grand sum of $5 for a seven-day week. That was lower than the lowest pay given to a person in the armed forces. Furthermore, I had to buy my own street and work clothes.

At the school, before I arrived, an accident killed two trainees and wounded another. The government considered these “hypothetical” deaths and injuries. The dead were included in our Book of Remembrance due to the efforts of Professor Griezic.

• 1545

There was a forced obligation to serve. We were paramilitary. On completion of the course, I couldn't leave even if I wanted to. I would have been picked up by the military police or the RCMP. I was sent to the manning pool in Montreal to await a ship. I couldn't leave there either.

We were disciplined by the merchant navy seamen's order and the Judge Advocate General, Navy. While waiting for that ship, I was given a weapons training course by the Royal Canadian Navy ratings. Aboard ship, merchant mariners were assigned places on the manning of the guns. We should have been designated war veterans in 1945, not 54 years later under Bill C-61.

There was an obligation of service to do what we were told. The merchant navy was commanded to deliver the goods. We sailed under sealed Admiralty orders. We delivered the military through a war zone to get them to their destinations or theatres of war. We delivered foodstuffs and war materiel. We sailed in dangerous waters. We helped raise the siege at Malta. We fought the enemy and were killed or injured, and many of our comrades were taken prisoners of war.

Then came the government's post-war neglect and unjust treatment. We couldn't get the benefits given to the military. I and a friend who was discharged from the navy went to a Montreal Veterans Affairs office seeking benefits and help. My friend was greeted with open arms. I told them I was in the merchant navy. They asked if I was injured at sea by enemy action. I said no. They replied, “There are no benefits for you.”

Later I went with my navy veteran friend to get a licence as a stationary engineer, Quebec board. My navy friend could take the course immediately. I was told I had to have 18 months' experience as an apprentice under an engineer before I could sit for a test for my licence. No wonder merchant mariners are bitter towards the Canadian government for how they treated us.

The above proves why the government's neglect and unjust treatment must be corrected with an ex gratia payment, as our military Hong Kong and merchant navy Far East POWs received—not the same amount, but rather $20,000 for each merchant seaman or his spouse and an additional $20,000 for each merchant navy POW—to compensate for the government's mistreatment of us.

No mention was made of merchant navy POWs in Bill C-84. There are improvements in Bill C-61 for merchant navy POWs and their spouses, but it's not enough.

I do not intend to go into the merchant navy POW situation that Mr. Gordon Olmstead has championed so well, and which has been now placed in the capable hands of a fellow shipmate and former POW, George Shaker. He will speak on this.

Our wartime comrades who spent time in prisoner of war camps in Europe, Japan, and other locations in Asia have been treated in worse ways than we have. They too are war veterans. Although they were captured by the enemy when their ships were sunk and then transported and isolated in POW camps, and were under their enemies' military discipline and their own type of discipline under their military comrades, they too are not considered war veterans.

The Honourable Mr. Merrithew stated on June 17, 1992 that we were purposely excluded from this designation. I have asked a number of MPs what we are if we are not war veterans. I still have not received an answer. If we are, then we should be placed under the same legislation as Bill C-61 proposes. This is the same situation as in Australia.

• 1550

Since merchant navy POWs spent such a long period—an average of 50 months—in internment camps and faced such difficult conditions, it makes sense to provide them with time-based compensation, which I strongly recommend. That must be included in Bill C-61.

All their time should be pensionable, not stop after 30 months, as is now the case. It can be extended to 36 months in special circumstances, but to stop at 30 months is to ignore two-fifths, or 40%, of their time spent in camps. If you MPs only received pensions for two-fifths of the time you spent in the Commons, I imagine you would agree with that, wouldn't you?

I'm going to have to close.

My shipmates and I are insulted by Mr. Chadderton, who says we should get $150 to $200 a month to live for 54 years of injustice. At $150 a month, that means $38 a week, $1,800 a year. If you live five years, that's $9,000. What an insult.

What a bargain for $50,000, which even Mr. Chadderton, in his brief in October, said we should get. There is something very, very wrong here.

The cost of such compensation for POWs should not create a burden on the Canadian government coffers. The DVA has been returning millions of dollars to the Treasury Board each year. As well, only a small number are involved. Our obligation of service to Canada and the war effort, and the government's post-war neglect and discrimination against us, I am certain you will agree, merit no less.

Thank you. Merci.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bruce.

We'll now go to the first round of questions for 10 minutes, starting with the Reform Party and Mr. Hart.

Mr. Jim Hart: Thank you very much, Mr. Bruce, for your presentation today.

I must say that back in 1993, when I was first elected, I thought this issue was going to be dealt with very quickly by the Government of Canada. Certainly there is an injustice here. The folks I got to know over the last few years in this issue—Mr. Olmstead and also Foster Griezic—have done a good job of presenting the case. Hopefully your interventions will help the process along.

I would like to just get a little bit more clarification on the POW compensation, if you could maybe talk about that a little bit more. I know that other veterans who were POWs, on average, spent less time in POW camps. Can you explain why it is that merchant mariners actually spent more time than those people and other services?

Mr. William Bruce: May I refer to Mr. George Shaker?

Mr. Jim Hart: Sure.

Mr. George Shaker (President, Canadian Merchant Navy Prisoner of War Association; Merchant Navy Coalition for Equality): The Battle of the Atlantic, which was from 1939 to 1943, was the longest battle of the war, and I would say about 90% of the merchant seamen who were taken prisoner were taken during that time. More ships were sunk during that period than at any other time of the war. It started to dwindle off in 1943—fewer ships were sunk then—but the bulk of the prisoners were taken during that period, from 1939 to 1943, so they were all in a prison camp for four years or more.

• 1555

The Chairman: Excuse me. Mr. Shaker, were you going to address the committee as well?

Mr. George Shaker: Yes.

The Chairman: Okay. My apologies. I think it will flow better then if we just go to you, Mr. Shaker, at this point and let you make your comments. Then I'll come back when you're through and we'll start with Mr. Hart and his questions. My apologies.

Thank you, Mr. Bruce. Now we'll hear from Mr. Shaker, please.

Mr. George Shaker: Mr. Chairman and honourable members of the standing committee, I am the president of the Merchant Navy Prisoner of War Association, which is a member of the Merchant Navy Coalition for Equality. On behalf of the association, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you.

I would like to dedicate this brief to Mr. Gordon Olmstead, who has been, for many years, unwavering in his efforts to obtain dignity and pride for the merchant navy and the merchant navy POWs.

I would also like to thank Foster Griezic, consultant for the Merchant Navy Coalition for Equality, who has been invaluable in researching the historical background of the Canadian merchant seamen during wartime and their treatment.

At this point I'd like to introduce another point that maybe has been lost. It doesn't have anything to do with my brief, but it refers to the merchant navy Far East POWs and their horrendous experience in the Japanese camps. It is important to single them out, because the government continues to ignore them.

When they, along with the Hong Kong and Buchenwald POWs, were given an ex gratia payment, the merchant navy POWs were not even mentioned in the statements or press releases of the Honourable Mr. Axworthy, Minister of Foreign Affairs, or the Honourable Mr. Mifflin, Minister of Veterans Affairs. Indeed, it was Professor Griezic, who is now involved in the interviewing, who contacted these survivors and gave their names to the department to ensure that they included their names for the payment. I have the list of names here if anyone wishes to see them.

The brief I am presenting represents some history of the Canadian merchant navy and my personal history as a merchant seaman and prisoner of war. As well, it is a request for compensation for the government's unjustifiable denial of rehabilitation and demobilization benefits given to my military comrades, which we have been without since the end of World War II.

Our government can rectify past discrimination cost-effectively, without waiting for the imminent deaths of our merchant navy men and women who gave their loyal support and their lives to the Canadian government's war effort. We aging Canadians have been sorely treated by successive Canadian governments. This government has the opportunity to correct that wrong and would merit accolades from all Canadians for doing so.

We thank the members of the government and the other parties for their cooperation in passing Bill C-61. I also thank those members of this committee who spoke with vigour in support of wartime merchant seamen during the second and third readings of the bill. After 54 years, equality will be provided with the wartime services, which has never been achieved by the Canadian merchant navy and the merchant navy POWs.

The government is well aware of the discrimination against merchant navy seamen and merchant navy POWs. The requests for benefits and war veteran status made in 1945 and thereafter still have not be redressed. I was one of those who corresponded with the minister, Ian MacKenzie, seeking support, as did Gordon Olmstead.

Veterans Affairs continues to contend that POW compensation was paid to military and merchant marine personnel on exactly the same basis and in the same amount. The compensation is described as being on a time-based scale. It ends after 30 months. What happened to the 48 to 58 months spent in the POW camps by the merchant seamen?

The Honourable Mr. Merrithew, Minister of Veterans Affairs, admitted to the legion's convention—resolution 4 in 1992—that the length of imprisonment is something measurable. This is a concept with which it would be difficult to disagree, but it is not practised by the department.

• 1600

Canada's merchant navy officers and sailors were Canadians serving under Canadian government and Admiralty orders on behalf of the Allied cause. We were on war alert one week before World War II began. We carried the soldiers, air crew, war workers, fuel, food, ammunition, and every kind of war supply across the Atlantic to Britain and to Russia and around the world, wherever the Canadian effort needed these to be taken.

Research by Gordon Olmstead, our distinguished immediate past president, shows that approximately 12,000 war-time merchant seamen volunteered their services in World War II. According to government records, we suffered the highest losses of any of the services: navy, one in 47; army, one in 32; air force, one in 16. We had the highest percentage of POWs. Some ships were lost in our own St. Lawrence River due to U-boats.

We were told we were the lifeline of the war effort. We were told we were an essential service. We were told we had to get our cargoes through. We were proud Canadian sailors from every province. Our crews spoke both French and English.

Our ships were slow, often alone without naval protection and subject to attack by German submarines, surface raiders, and aircraft. We sailed the North Atlantic in winter, before radar and modern survival equipment or search and rescue methods. To this was added the constant prospect of an encounter with an efficient and often cruel enemy.

We were not considered equal to our military comrades who we transported through a war zone to other battle zones in the Mediterranean, Europe, and the Pacific. We were paid less than our military counterparts. We paid income tax even on our war bonus in 1942. We had compulsory war savings deducted, which few saw afterwards. We could not get into military hospitals and get health care. We had no workmen's compensation and had very restrictive pensions and no benefits.

The background for Canadian merchant seamen captured by the enemy in World War II is the context of the Battle of the Atlantic, the longest battle of the war. It was a time of crippling merchant navy losses that have not been recognized by Canada's government or historians.

Fully 198 Canadian merchant seamen who encountered the enemy were captured from the sea when their ships were sunk. This was a higher percentage than in the other services. We were prisoners longer than any of the other services. Most spent four years—48 to 58 months—in prison camps in Europe, but 23 spent over three years in the Far East. The conditions in the Pacific theatre were degrading, and merchant seamen prisoners were treated as lower than any military rank.

Medical evidence in Canada and the U.S. verifies the deleterious impact of enemy incarceration. The Herman report in 1973 recognized the linkage between being a prisoner and early death, premature aging, stress, trauma, nervousness or nervous disorders, anxiety, insecurity, and other physiological or psychological effects. Research and publications on U.S. ex-POWs confirm the results of incarceration. No study has been done on Canada's POWs, nor have they been kept track of in any official way.

Merchant navy prisoners of war were resourceful, resilient, independent, and patient. They needed those qualities in abundance when they returned home in 1945 to find themselves officially unwelcome, afloat or ashore.

Merchant navy POWs did and do receive some benefits, but the government's discrimination against them continues. That should be ended immediately, and I hope the military veterans' associations will lend their support openly and actively to have that occur.

My story as a POW pales beside the stories of those who were terribly maimed or burned in the war and then left to fend for themselves. Most were ignored by government and some were actively hindered by it.

In October 1940 I graduated from the Electronics Institute of Canada and received a certificate from the Department of Transport as a radio operator. I had also applied for a commission in the air force. I was offered a position as radio officer aboard the Canadian steamship A.D. Huff, and I joined the Huff in Halifax. The Huff had a crew of 42 and was a general cargo ship carrying iron ore from Dartmouth, Nova Scotia and newsprint from Dalhousie, New Brunswick.

• 1605

We sailed to Great Britain. We received coded orders from the Admiralty for which route to take. We were to have no protection until we arrived off Scotland, where we would join several other ships in convoy. We formed a convoy at Oban, Scotland and sailed down the east coast of Britain with planes and cruisers as escorts. The Battle of Britain was still in progress. We arrived in London to witness the docks burning from bombs dropped by German aircraft. We had to anchor in the bay until the loading zone was cleared.

We sailed out of London on February 11, 1941, up the east coast to join the convoy at Oban. The convoy left with escorts, but as before, the escorts returned to their bases after 300 miles at sea. Once again we received coded orders from the Admiralty as to our route back to Canada.

At about noon on February 22, 1941 the A.D. Huff was about 500 miles from Halifax when a small plane flew over and dropped a rolled-up message on deck. It was given to Captain MacDowell, who glanced at it, threw it overboard, and gave orders for full speed ahead.

Coincidentally, the ship of one of the members Mr. Bruce introduced, Jim Murray, was sunk six hours after our ship was sunk. We were sunk by the Gneisnau, and his ship was sunk six hours later by the Scharnhorst. We were both just off the coast of Canada and the United States.

The aircraft that was sent over was a spotter plane from the German pocket battleship Gneisnau. The captain ordered me to send out the signal that we were under attack by an enemy surface raider. As I started to send the signal, the German battleship opened fire. Two shells burst overhead, and the next three shells hit the engine room. Two engine-room crew were killed, five men were burned, and our first officer, Mr. Kerr, was badly burned while saving the engineers.

We received no reply from shore, since the battleship used a powerful spark transmitter to drown out our messages. In any event, Canada had nothing to send that might have been a match for the Gneisnau's power or speed.

The captain ordered us to abandon ship. My operator, Gerald Conrod, and I left the radio room. The next salvo of shells hit it. We jumped over the side. Lifeboats had been lowered. We were glad to be picked up along with Captain MacDowell and the bosun, Ernie Shackleton. As we pulled away from the sinking ship, the Gneisnau hailed us to come alongside and took us aboard as prisoners of war. Thus began my 1,528 days of enemy incarceration as a prisoner of war.

We were transferred in mid-Atlantic to a prison ship, the Ermeland, and sailed to our first prison camp in France. After 10 days we were loaded into boxcars for our first German POW camp, Stalag 10B. The Germans treated us no differently from how they would have treated us had we been serving in the Canadian army, air force, or navy. To them we were combatants.

During this time I had an operation on my ankle, which had been injured when I transferred from the battleship to the prison ship. I fainted from the pain on roll call one morning and was taken to the camp doctor.

The Germans did not fill in the Canadian government reports for injuries. All the camp records were apparently lost or destroyed after the war. The lack of Canadian government reports of injuries was used by a cynical Canadian administration to deny veterans their proper compensation. I experienced this firsthand when the Canadian government challenged my own injuries.

During my time in hospital I got news from Canada that I had been offered a commission in the air force. However, as luck would have it, the Germans wouldn't let me go home to take the physical.

In 1942 we were marched to a naval prisoner of war camp known as Marlag and Milag Nord, which consisted of merchant navy, Royal Canadian Navy, and Royal Navy prisoners. We started to receive Red Cross parcels soon after we arrived in this camp. However, there were long stretches when parcels did not arrive. After the Allies crossed the Rhine, the parcels stopped coming altogether. I lost 48 pounds living in German prison camps.

Our camp was liberated on April 28, 1945 by the British Second Army, with the sound of bagpipes leading them down the road. I am no fan of the bagpipes, but I've never heard a more beautiful sound in my life.

• 1610

The Royal Navy and Royal Canadian Navy prisoners were moved out of camp and flown back to Britain first. The Canadian merchant navy POWs were not sent back to Britain until later. Luckily we arrived in London on VE Day. We were treated magnificently by the British.

Canadian servicemen were taken to Liverpool and returned to Canada on the Isle de France immediately. The Canadian merchant navy prisoners of war were repatriated last. When we Canadian merchant navy prisoners of war got home to Halifax, there was no fanfare, no one to meet us. I myself did not arrive in Toronto until June 16, 1945. We felt so desolate that most of us wanted to go back to England.

Alone amongst the western Allies, the Canadian government failed to treat its Canadian merchant navy veterans as veterans. The British recognized their merchant navy as deserving full compensation immediately following the war. The U.S. did the same. The Australian government followed suit soon after. The Canadian government has failed to recognize and compensate the merchant navy equally to all other branches of the armed services that served in World War II.

Just as an aside for a minute, in preparing for this presentation, I took the opportunity to review my personal papers, and I am providing copies of them to the committee if they wish to see them. I was surprised to find, on reviewing my statement of detention allowances, that my allowances were discontinued one month prior to my return to Canada. I paid for my return to Canada, and income tax was deducted. The rationale has never been explained. I have the papers here to show that. If anybody wishes to peruse them, you may do so.

I have recommendations for benefits for merchant navy POWs. The following compensation proposed is justifiable, reasonable, cost-effective, and makes sense. It is but a small part of what the government owes we Canadians for their discrimination and neglect.

One, full time-based compensation should be provided to all POWs and merchant navy POWs. The time-measured compensation must be extrapolated beyond 30 or 36 months to be equitable, and there should be a commensurate increase for the period beyond the 30 or 36 months. The department supports this in theory, as did the minister in 1992. Now it needs to be implemented.

Two, POW compensation adjustments should be made retroactive to the original merchant navy POW submission in 1989. Costing should be minimal.

Three, merchant navy POWs or their spouses, in view of their abysmal treatment by successive governments, should be granted a tax-free, $40,000 lump-sum, ex gratia payment for that mistreatment and for denied reconstruction benefits.

Four, wartime merchant seamen and seawomen or their spouses, in view of the purposeful discrimination and neglect by successive governments, should be granted a tax-free, $20,000 lump-sum, ex gratia payment for the post-war benefits or opportunities denied them.

Five, injured wartime merchant seamen or seawomen or their spouses, in view of the lack of workmen's compensation for merchant seamen during the war and the purposeful discrimination and neglect by successive governments, should be granted a tax-free, $5,000 lump-sum, ex gratia compensation.

And six, although, because of the age of merchant navy POWs and merchant navy seamen, It's Almost Too Late, to use Senator Jack Marshall's telling title to his fine report in 1991, the government should keep better track of the few remaining and should act before all wartime merchant seamen are dead.

• 1615

I would like to add a final comment. Most surviving POWs are now in their 80s. Many are ill and are unable to maintain a dignified standard of living. For the few remaining and their spouses, there is an immediate need to receive a lump-sum compensation in order to live their remaining time in some degree of comfort. To do less would be indefensible.

Thank you for your kind attention and consideration. I would be pleased to answer any questions. I have some material if you wish to see it.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Shaker.

I'm pleased that you mentioned Mr. Olmstead's work in this matter. We regret that he's not able to be here today, but we're glad his wife and son are here. Many of us have had the pleasure of meeting, and a few of us of travelling, with Mr. Olmstead. He's a fine gentleman, and we're pleased that you are presenting the case today, you and Mr. Bruce and others who are here.

As we begin questions, I would note that I have regrets from two critics who are absent, Mr. Goldring from the Reform Party and Mrs. Wayne from the Progressive Conservative Party. They're both absent for reasons of personal and/or family illness. I thought that should be on the record, because they both have a keen interest in this matter in particular, as well as in all the matters that come before this committee, but they're quite interested in this matter.

With that for the record, I'll begin the first round of 10-minute questioning with Mr. Hart from the Reform Party.

Mr. Jim Hart: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you again, Mr. Bruce and Mr. Shaker, not only for your presentations, but for your service to Canada in the merchant navy.

I would like to ask you about the lump-sum payments. You've asked in the third recommendation for a tax-free, $40,000 lump sum for mistreatment and denied reconstruction benefits. Can you explain how that figure was arrived at?

Mr. George Shaker: If you have a little patience, I'll read you something that might explain it.

Mr. Jim Hart: Sure.

Mr. George Shaker: This is a letter dated September 1954. It says:

This is a claim for maltreatment of the above-named claimant while a prisoner of war in Europe.

I'm the claimant.

I find from the evidence that the claimant was a Canadian within the meaning of the War Claims Rules at all relevant times and that the claimant was in custody a total of 1528 days. He was transported by box-car on 5 occasions. He was in the direct custody of the Gestapo a total of 36 days. I also find that the claimant suffered unusually severe maltreatment in the following respects: (1) March between camps. (2) 35 days in hold of prison ship.

In all the circumstances of the case I recommend that the claimant be awarded $482.40.

I think we should be awarded more than $482.40, and $40,000 is a very small claim to make for all that time.

Mr. Jim Hart: Yes, I would agree that $400 doesn't seem like much compensation whatsoever. Has there been a formula though? Is there a formula of some kind that your association used?

Mr. George Shaker: Some in the association wanted to make it retroactive, and retroactive would have amounted to somewhere in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. I was in for four years, two months, and six days, so a retroactive amount would have come to over $100,000. We think the government would not accept the retroactive payments, so we're giving the government a chance to come up with a $40,000 ex gratia payment so that they might agree to a sum that we think is a reasonable amount.

• 1620

Mr. Jim Hart: I've been watching this issue since 1993, and it really is a non-partisan issue, although the committee is split up between the government members over there and opposition members over here. I've talked to members from all sides of the House, and it's hard to find anyone who would say you don't have a legitimate claim.

The government can move awfully quickly when it wants to. Today in the House of Commons, I think later on, we'll be passing a bill in one day on back-to-work legislation. Yet when it comes to an issue such as merchant mariners, who have waited 54 years for proper compensation, the wheel moves very slowly.

Both of you made excellent presentations, but I was wondering if maybe you could personally tell us your feelings about why Canada—I won't even say the Government of Canada, because I don't want to be partisan—has literally turned its back on merchant navy veterans, and what it has done specifically to your life because that has happened.

Mr. George Shaker: I don't know whether I could give you a complete answer, but the merchant navy has been given a bad name from way back in the 1940s and 1950s. One of the causes was bringing Hal Banks into the picture for the Canadian Seamen's Union. From that point onward, the merchant navy's reputation and its picture in the eyes of the public was as a bunch of rabble. But we are not a bunch of rabble.

With my acceptance into the Royal Canadian Air Force after I came back, I was glad to be a merchant seaman, because they were treated so badly, and their reputation, because of someone like Hal Banks, had made them seem like a bunch of communists and rabble.

I have a letter that was sent to me from a captain of a ship that was in Cuba. The whole crew of this particular ship, the seamen, were told to go on strike, and the Cubans put them in jail. When they were all in jail, one of my shipmates—we called him Boots Munro—was making a good story for them and telling them, “Goddammit, I was a prisoner of war in Germany for four years, and now I'm in a jail in Cuba and they're calling me a communist.”

This was how the merchant navy was treated after the war. This was in 1949. He'd joined the merchant navy, and they were just made to look like....

That's my opinion as far as the public is concerned about the merchant navy. It's just in the past few years that the merchant navy has started to feel a little proud of itself.

Mr. William Bruce: I would like to add something. I hate to use this word in front of you gentlemen, but I blame the politicians for this too, over the years since 1945. They've known the story up to this date, and nobody's moved on it.

Mr. George Shaker: Sir Winston Churchill said the merchant navy was the backbone of the whole of World War II. Many others politicians mentioned that if it were not for the merchant navy, the war would never have been won. There are so many comments in the history books and whatnot about the merchant navy. Whether they're in the history books or not, they were made by very high-ranking men.

They should recognized, because the other countries have recognized them all. We were treated so well in England. When we arrived back in England, we were treated better than the military, as far as I was concerned.

• 1625

Mr. Jim Hart: As you say, if the military hadn't had the supplies the merchant mariners were delivering, the war effort probably wouldn't have gone the way it did go.

Mr. George Shaker: That's right.

Mr. Jim Hart: Those are all my questions. Again, I thank you very much for your presentation, and I salute both of you gentlemen and the work the merchant mariners did for all Canadians. Thank you.

Mr. George Shaker: Thank you.

Mr. William Bruce: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Hart.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin.

Mr. René Laurin: I would first of all like a little more information about Mr. Bruce's presentation. You said that shortly before you arrived at the merchant navy's Marine Engineering School in Laval, an accident happened in which two trainees were wounded and some actually killed.

The government said that these were hypothetical deaths and injuries. I don't understand what is meant by the word “hypothetical”. Does that mean that the government simply considered these to be accidental deaths? What is the meaning of the word “hypothetical” in this case? Did they not believe it was true? What was meant?

[English]

Mr. William Bruce: All this transpired before I got to the school, you understand. These two accidents happened before I got to the school. They were training; they were on a little boat and the boiler exploded. Two chaps were killed.

They didn't recognize them, because they were merchant seamen. The government didn't recognize them being dead. They said they were “hypothetical” deaths. But now their names are up on Parliament Hill, in the Peace Tower, in the Book of Remembrance for merchant seamen. Before that, they didn't recognize them as armed forces.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: That is quite strange, Mr. Chairman. If you are not a member of the Armed Forces, you cannot die? That is almost what it amounts to, apparently.

I have another question. Mr. Bruce referred to two $20,000 amounts that would be paid to members of the merchant navy who served during the war, or the spouses of those who died, and another $20,000 for those who were POWs.

Does that mean that people who belonged to the Merchant Navy during the war, and who were subsequently taken prisoner would be entitled to two $20,000 amounts?

[English]

Mr. William Bruce: If I understand you correctly, my answer is that we want the $20,000. We want that for what we never got after the war. The armed forces got housing, they got small loans, and they got to go to university—McGill University, l'Université de Montréal. They all became lawyers or politicians.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Yes, but that is not what I was getting at in my question, Mr. Bruce.

• 1630

Let me give you an example. One merchant seaman could have crossed the ocean and been taken prisoner within a month, whereas another might have served three or four years and then have been taken prisoner. In the latter case, the person would have been involved in the war for three years and then taken prisoner, whereas in the first case, the person would have had almost no involvement in the war, but was a POW for four years.

Does the $20,000 you are asking for cover both of these cases, or would the person who both served in the war and then was a POW be entitled to two $20,000 payments? I don't know whether I am making myself clear.

[English]

Mr. William Bruce: The point is that the merchant seamen want a $20,000 lump sum, and the prisoners of war, I believe, deserve another $20,000.

Do you understand my reply?

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: So a merchant seaman who was not taken prisoner would get only $20,000?

[English]

Mr. William Bruce: Every merchant seaman who served in World War II deserves $20,000 for benefits he didn't receive after the Second World War. And as for our prisoners of war, they deserve $40,000.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Extra?

[English]

Mr. William Bruce: That's $20,000 and $20,000.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: I have another question. I know it is rather sensitive, but I'm going to ask it nevertheless. Don't think badly of my intentions. I am simply trying to determine the context in which you are making your demand; I'm not passing judgment on it.

I would like to know how, when you ask for a lump-sum payment, that could make up for the poor treatment you may have endured? Personally, I acknowledge that you deserve compensation and different treatment from what you've been getting, and I hope the committee will be making some recommendations along these lines. However, I wonder how we can best correct some mistakes made in the past. Suppose I were to give a car to someone today who would have liked to have had a car 30 years ago, and who for whatever reason did not have one. If I give him a car at a time when he can no longer drive, would that really be righting the mistakes made in the past?

That's somewhat how I see the lump-sum amount. Do you think the lump-sum payment would correct the fact that compensation had not been paid? Would it not be better to give you a pension, perhaps a somewhat more generous pension, something you would be able to use for the years you have left? I would like your opinion on that.

[English]

Mr. George Shaker: There are so many parties, not necessarily prisoners of war, but seamen and prisoners of war.

I have two seaman friends in Toronto who are now incapacitated. One of them is in the hospital, in K Wing of the military hospital. He's lost all his memory and senses, but his wife is still living, and she is now hard of hearing. She's losing her hearing constantly.

This $40,000 compensation for prisoners of war would help her, not necessarily him. He's in the hospital; he's being taken care of. But it would help her to finish her days in life with a certain dignity and comfort.

• 1635

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: In a case such as that, wouldn't it be better if his wife were to get all the care she needs rather than getting a lump-sum payment?

[English]

Mr. George Shaker: What treatment are you talking about? She's capable of walking around, but she—

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Yes, but you say that she is hard of hearing. Given that the average age of veterans is 89, I imagine the woman in question must be almost that old.

How could the $40,000 improve her quality of life? Wouldn't the best way of saying thank you be to give her a better quality of life? Wouldn't it be better for her to have better treatment, better health care, better housing? Wouldn't it be better than giving her a lump-sum payment, which would not necessarily make her any happier?

[English]

Mr. George Shaker: If you have been living at a certain level in life for so many years, in this day and age you require a good sum of money to keep living at that particular level, and at the cost of living now, your money dwindles quite fast. If she does get a small amount such as $40,000, that is not going to last her long, whether she's 72 or 82. It's not going to last her long, but it might help her to keep her present quality of life as it was in the past, because her husband cannot do anything for her now.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Laurin.

[English]

Thank you, Mr. Shaker.

Mr. Shaker, you made reference earlier to some additional documents you had. I wonder if you could table a copy of those with the clerk—after the meeting is fine, or now if you have them handy—because it could be useful to the committee in our deliberations. If you don't have an extra copy now, we could arrange to have one.

Mr. George Shaker: My wife has them in the background. When she brings them forth—

The Chairman: Okay, very good. Thank you. We'll give them to the clerk then.

I'll go now to the majority side and Mr. Wood, the parliamentary secretary for veterans affairs.

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

Mr. Shaker, I'd like to ask a couple of things. Following up on Mr. Laurin's questions, on page 10 of your brief, when you talk about the compensation, you have a lot of numbers there, and I guess I'm a little confused about what it all adds up to and how we can find out about this. In paragraph C you're asking for a tax-free $40,000 lump sum; in paragraph D you're asking for $20,000; and then in paragraph E you're asking for a $5,000 lump sum for POWs. Does that all add up?

Mr. George Shaker: No, no. The $5,000 is extra. That's to compensate for not receiving any compensation. I'll ask Mr. Griezic to explain that particular item.

The Chairman: Well, unfortunately, gentlemen, Mr. Griezic is not part of the delegation today. I suppose if the committee's agreeable, we can have him come.

Mr. Wood, do you want to hear from Mr. Griezic?

Mr. Bob Wood: I don't know what the schedule is. If Mr. Griezic is going to be coming before us later in another capacity, I can certainly wait until then.

The Chairman: Yes, we'll be hearing from him later on.

I think all of us, gentlemen, had the same problem Mr. Wood is trying to express. It's $40,000, $20,000, and $5,000, and we're not sure how....

Mr. George Shaker: The $5,000 is compensation because they had no workmen's compensation at that time. If anyone was injured, they went to hospital and had to pay for having their injuries taken care of and whatnot. The $5,000 is to compensate for that particular thing.

• 1640

If anyone in the services was injured, they were taken care of without any cost at all. The military doctors or the naval doctors or whoever took care of them with no cost. If anyone in the merchant navy was injured and sent to a hospital, they had to pay for their own injuries.

That compensation of $5,000 is only for anyone who was injured and could prove he was injured or incapacitated at the time he was with the merchant navy.

Mr. Bob Wood: So what you're saying is—and correct me if I'm wrong, because I might get this messed up—you're looking for $65,000 in all for spouses?

Mr. George Shaker: No, no.

Mr. Bob Wood: You say a $40,000 lump sum for mistreatment and denied reconstruction benefits, a $20,000 lump sum for post-war benefits or opportunities denied, and then a tax-free $5,000 lump sum for compensation.

Mr. George Shaker: No, you're reading that wrong.

Mr. Bob Wood: All right. Please correct me.

Mr. George Shaker: The $20,000 is for merchant seamen only. That's a lump sum for merchant seamen.

Mr. Bob Wood: Or their spouses.

Mr. George Shaker: Or their spouses. Then there's an additional $20,000 for merchant navy prisoners of war. That's a total of $40,000 for merchant navy prisoners of war and a total of $20,000 for merchant seamen, not a combined—

Mr. Bob Wood: Okay. I got you. All right.

How can we ever find out about merchant navy seamen or their spouses? We've been led to believe that a lot of those records have been destroyed.

Mr. George Shaker: I have records.

Mr. Bob Wood: Of all of them? There are 12,000, right? We've been told there are 12,000 merchant navy people who enlisted during the war. Is that right or wrong? We've been led to believe that.

Mr. George Shaker: If you have not kept track of the merchant seamen, we have kept track of the merchant navy prisoners of war, and I have records of them with me right now. If you want the list of merchant seamen, I can give you the list now. If the government itself hasn't kept track of them, they will have to take our records. I have here 1991, 1995, and current records of merchant navy seamen and spouses who are still living.

Mr. Bob Wood: Are you saying the living ones?

Mr. George Shaker: This is merchant navy prisoners of war. I don't have records of merchant navy seamen. Mr. Allan MacIsaac, who is the president of the Canadian Merchant Navy Coalition for Equality, might have some records.

Mr. William Bruce: Let me explain that our group is now compiling a list of merchant seamen and their spouses, not prisoners of war.

Mr. Bob Wood: Mr. Bruce, what I'm trying to get at is how many merchant navy seamen are still living, and their spouses. When you talk about compensation, sir, are you talking about people who have passed away and their spouses are still living, or are you talking about merchant navy seamen who are still alive and their spouses?

Mr. William Bruce: If they're deceased, it goes to the spouse. It ends there.

Mr. Bob Wood: Are we talking about the ones who are living now, sir, or are we talking about the ones—

Mr. William Bruce: If the spouses are living and their husbands are dead, they should get what they're entitled to for the merchant seamen who are dead.

Mr. Bob Wood: That's a number of people, though, right? How would you find out?

Mr. William Bruce: Well, if the government has kept these records—

The Chairman: It would help, Mr. Wood, if you'd put your full question and the witnesses could hear the full question, and then we'll hear their full response without any interruption from anybody. I think that will help.

Mr. Wood.

Mr. Bob Wood: This is a rather complicated formula for how we go about it; that's all. I just want to get some clarification of how many people we're talking about here—whether we're talking about 12,000 or 5,000. I don't know. I just wondered if our witnesses had a ballpark figure of how many spouses are living and how many merchant navy people are living. That's basically what I'm trying to get at.

• 1645

Mr. William Bruce: Don't quote me on the correct amount, but I believe about 2,200 are left out of the 12,000.

Mr. Bob Wood: That's merchant navy, sir?

Mr. William Bruce: Yes, sir.

Mr. Bob Wood: And how many spouses? Do you have any idea?

Mr. William Bruce: No, I don't, but as I just told you a moment ago, we're compiling a list.

Mr. Bob Wood: Okay. Will you be able to submit that list to us later on?

Mr. William Bruce: I imagine they're in the process of doing it. Mr. MacIsaac will be appearing before this committee?

Mr. Bob Wood: Yes.

Mr. William Bruce: Well, I imagine he will bring the list. He might not have the total amount, but we're getting a number of replies to this question.

Mr. Bob Wood: Good. Excellent.

The Chairman: Mr. Shaker, do you want to add to this?

Mr. George Shaker: Mr. Wood, the last figure I heard from Allan I think was around 1,769, if I remember right. It might be as Mr. Bruce quotes. It's around the 2,000 mark, I believe.

Mr. Bob Wood: Okay.

In your statement you claim that other Allied countries have recognized and compensated their merchant navies. While I agree with you that all the countries have recognized their merchant mariners as veterans, I was wondering if you could clarify how other countries, such as Australia or the U.S., as you mentioned, have compensated their merchant navies, and when they did this.

Mr. George Shaker: I don't have the exact dates. I have the exact dates in a record at home. They were in a brief presented by someone else. I know they have recognized them, but I don't have the exact dates for which period they recognized them.

They didn't recognize them the same as the British did. The British recognized them immediately after the war. The exact dates of the others came later. The United States came first, and then the Australians came afterwards, but it was quite some years ago. It wasn't just recently; it was quite some years ago, soon after the war. After the British recognized them, the others came after.

Mr. Bob Wood: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Wood.

Now we'll go to Mr. Earle from the NDP for 10 minutes.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I won't need 10 minutes, because the points I was going to ask about have been clarified through previous questions.

I do want to, however, for the record, commend both witnesses for their presentations and let them know that certainly this is an issue we are very supportive of, and we would hope we can come to some reasonable conclusion on this matter.

I also want to, for the record, pay a tribute to Mr. Gordon Olmstead for the fine work he has done on this issue. We regret that he cannot be with us. We realize he's in ill health at the moment. Certainly for the record we want to record our appreciation for the work he has done on this issue concerning the merchant navy.

Thank you.

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

For the Progressive Conservatives, Mr. Price.

Mr. David Price: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much, Mr. Bruce and Mr. Shaker, for your presentations. I bring to you regrets from Elsie Wayne. As you know, she's been a strong person behind this, and she is an associate of mine. Normally I sit on more of the armed forces part of it, but today I will be backing her up, because she really can't be here.

There were a couple of surprises that I'd like to hear you expand a little on. Mr. Shaker, you mentioned that you had to pay for your passage back to Canada from England after the war?

Mr. George Shaker: Yes, back to Canada from England.

Mr. David Price: And then to home?

Mr. George Shaker: Yes, I had to pay for it. I have it on record.

Mr. David Price: I found that really quite incredible.

Mr. Bruce, you said you came under the military justice system, under the JAG of the navy.

Mr. William Bruce: Yes, sir.

Mr. David Price: Therefore if you tried to desert or any crime was committed or anything, you came....

Mr. William Bruce: Yes, you could be put in prison without a trial, with six months of hard labour.

• 1650

Mr. David Price: And no other civilians came under that that you know of?

Mr. William Bruce: Well, we were civilians. We were only the ones who were fingerprinted. I guess they didn't trust us.

Mr. David Price: That's my point. So you really were being treated as military. It's quite clear there.

Did you have to carry arms, or did you carry arms?

Mr. William Bruce: Yes, on the ships. As I stated in my brief, when I came to the manning pool in Montreal, which was in a four-star hotel, the old Place Viger Hotel—it's an office building for the City of Montreal now; it was a CPR hotel—I waited there. Next door the Royal Canadian Navy had a weapons training centre, and we took the weapons training.

And we manned the ships. Aboard the Canadian ships they had such a thing as the DEMS. There were navy guys aboard the ships on the guns. We manned the guns with the navy on the ships.

As I say, in 1945 they should have called us veterans, not 54 years later.

Mr. David Price: Yes, I agree. I'm trying to bring out a little more. I also look at other functions on a ship, for instance on a navy ship, where, let's say, cooks and people in the galley, as well as people back in Canada who were loading these ships, were part of the military. I guess it's very similar to the types of jobs you were doing.

Mr. William Bruce: I shovelled my way around the world, shovelling coal.

Mr. David Price: Yet the treatment was quite different.

Mr. William Bruce: Yes. We still had discipline, as it states.

Mr. David Price: Okay.

Mr. Shaker, as we speak, how many merchant navy prisoner of war veterans are left living today? That number, I imagine, is rather small.

Mr. George Shaker: Including the Far East prisoners, it's fewer than 50.

Mr. David Price: And from documents I have here, an average of 13 are dying a month.

Mr. George Shaker: It just depends which month it is.

Mr. David Price: It's an unfortunate number also.

Mr. George Shaker: In response to something you were mentioning before, we had a Royal Navy gunner aboard our ship who handled the gun.

Mr. David Price: So you always had a mix of armed forces and—

Mr. George Shaker: We had a company of the Royal Navy. So, as Bill says here, we had guns.

Mr. David Price: Yes.

It was clearly stated before that there's no question the nerve line of the war was the merchant navy, the material coming across from Canada and from the States.

I actually did have written down that in 1939 the British made the merchant navy equal to their other military, and in 1986 the United States purchased life insurance plans, and also that the Germans had compensated their merchant navy, which I was surprised to hear.

Those are the questions I have for right now. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Price. We'll go now to a five-minute round of questions.

If time allows, when the members are through with questions, there is another person, Mr. Marsolais, who said he would like a minute or two. If not, we'll invite him back another time. We'll see how the questioning unfolds.

We start the second round always with the opposition side. Mr. Hart, you have five minutes.

Mr. Jim Hart: That's okay. All my questions have been answered.

The Chairman: Okay.

[Translation]

Do you have any other questions, Mr. Laurin?

Mr. René Laurin: No. Thank you. Everything has been covered.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Wood and then we'll come back to Mr. Earle.

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

Mr. Shaker and Mr. Bruce, it was just brought to my attention by the research people that when we're talking about compensation, a subject that has been brought before this committee before is the payments also going to the estate. They'd go to the merchant navy member or their spouse, but also could be paid to the estate.

• 1655

A voice: There's no record of that, I don't believe, anyway.

Mr. Bob Wood: I think we did. Yes, it's come up before in some of our deliberations, maybe not right away, but—

The Chairman: I believe, Mr. Wood, I recall Mr. Chadderton making that point too: if the spouse of the sailor is deceased, then the payment would be made to the estate. I seem to recall that. Several of us are recalling that. We'll get that clarified and the discussion—

Mr. Bob Wood: How do you feel about that?

Mr. George Shaker: How does the government feel about it?

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Bob Wood: You're the witness. We can always change places.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: The way it's supposed to work is, Mr. Wood gets to ask the question and you have to give him an answer.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: It's a serious question though. Do you have a thought at this time, or would you rather defer?

Mr. George Shaker: I have no thought on it at this time, because I don't think the government is going to agree to it anyway, so what thoughts could I have on it?

Mr. Bob Wood: Okay, that's fine.

Mr. William Bruce: May I say something, sir?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. William Bruce: I have a letter here that I received from Mr. Chrétien, dated September 19, 1991. It reads:

Dear Mr. Bruce:

Thank you for your letter regarding the Merchant Navy veterans of World War Two.

The Liberal Party has raised this issue in the House of Commons. I have enclosed a copy of remarks made in the House of Commons by Mr. George Proud, the Liberal critic for Veterans Affairs, supporting recognition of the contribution of Canada's Merchant Seamen.

Again, thank you for your letter regarding this important matter.

Mr. Bob Wood: Could we have that tabled, sir? Do you mind giving it to us so that we can get a copy of it and give it back to you?

Mr. William Bruce: Will I get it back?

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Bob Wood: Yes, you sure can.

Mr. William Bruce: When he brings it back, I'll read what Mr. Proud said.

Mr. Bob Wood: In the meantime, can I ask Mr. Shaker one more question?

A couple of newspaper articles have suggested the merchant mariners only received the same benefits as regular force members 12 days ago, when Bill C-61 passed third reading in the House. Is it not true that members of the merchant navy have had full access to the same benefits since 1992?

Perhaps you could share with us your personal experiences, particularly in regard to access to POW programs and when they became available to the merchant navy. I recall that they became available in 1976. I could be wrong, but I think it was back there sometime. I don't know if you took advantage of them or not. Could you elaborate on that a little bit?

Mr. George Shaker: I am a pensioner. I have two new knees. I applied for a pension for my first knee, which I injured transferring from one ship to the other, when I also injured my ankle. I applied for a pension earlier. Then in 1992 I applied for a pension for it, and I couldn't prove that my knee had been injured, because there was no record.

In Stalag 10B they had no record of any injuries at all or of whether you went to the hospital or not in there. I was in the hospital in Stalag 10B. Witnesses to that have all died since. I tried to find somebody who remembered taking me there, but I haven't been able to prove that.

• 1700

They finally gave me a pension for my left knee in 1992, but I didn't get it until 1996, retroactive. I got the retroactive payment in 1996.

Then I also applied for my right knee, which I injured in the camp playing English rugger. They accepted that. The only reason they accepted that was I had letters from my brother asking how my knee was, and I had written to him telling him my knee was doing fine and I had been in the hospital for three days. He saved all my letters. I took them to the lawyer at the pensions office, and she said I would get a pension for that. So I got a pension for both knees.

But as far as pensions go, I don't think I'm getting the pension I deserve. I can't really give you a figure, because it's hard to give you a figure. I don't know how the pension people work as far as that's concerned either.

My knee doctor's phone number is 492-KNEE. He's one of the best in Toronto, so I have two good knees now. But just a couple of days ago I was walking around and my leg collapsed, because I have certain.... I take an anti-inflammatory pill and other pills to keep me on my feet and keep me walking, but I can collapse any day.

Other than that, there's no figure I can give for that. The compensation of $40,000 is minimal as far as I'm concerned. All the merchant navy POWs should get that compensation, not necessarily for pensions, but for the lost opportunities. My brother paid for my education, and then I was trying to get an honours degree at university, but I had to quit, because my mother.... There were seven children in our family, and my father died when I was four years old, so my mother had to take care of seven children.

I'm just about 80 years old now. My brother took care of me after the war, more or less, and paid for my university education. At that time I finished a BA in two years so that I could go and work with my brother, who wanted to go into some business. So that's what I did. There was no money there at all. The amount of money we had....

With the lack of education and the loss of opportunities for me, I could have maybe been in Chrétien's place or something like that if I had had a little better education. So that's part of it.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Wood.

Mr. Bob Wood: I just want to thank Mr. Shaker for sharing that with me.

I appreciate very much your doing that. It was nice to hear you say that.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. We have other questioners. If we could go to those, we'll have a chance to bring out some more points.

Mr. Earle, do you have any further questions?

Mr. Gordon Earle: No.

The Chairman: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Clouthier, did I see you with a question?

Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.): Yes.

Mr. Bruce, in your deposition on page 2, I believe, you talk about going to the Merchant Navy Marine Engineering School in Prescott, Ontario, and you got the grand sum, as you said, of $5 for a seven-day week. You said the Government of Canada paid that?

Mr. William Bruce: It was the Department of Transport.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: The Department of Transport of the Government of Canada paid you for that?

Mr. William Bruce: Yes, sir.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: Okay. When you actually were a merchant mariner on the ship, did the Government of Canada pay you? Who paid your salary?

Mr. William Bruce: It was a steamship company. A company was started by the Government of Canada called Park Steamship Limited. We worked for Canadian Pacific, Canadian National, and different shipping companies.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: But your actual pay, your actual cheque—

Mr. William Bruce: We got paid by the shipping company.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: Okay.

Mr. Shaker, when you were a prisoner of war, were you paid for any of that by the steamship company?

Mr. George Shaker: No. The Department of Transport paid my pay, but they also deducted every cent I spent in England. We didn't have any money when we came back from the prison camp, so we used to draw...I think it was £20 per day that we were allowed to draw from Canada House in London.

• 1705

I didn't get back to Canada until June, so we had almost a full month to have a good time. We used to draw £20 from Canada House practically every day to have a good time at the pubs and whatever. That was deducted from us when we got back to Canada.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: So when you were actually on the boat before you got taken prisoner, you were paid by some shipping company.

Mr. George Shaker: It was the Canadian International Paper Company.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: But then when you were a prisoner of war, you were paid by Transport Canada for that time you spent in prison?

Mr. George Shaker: Right.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: Interesting.

Okay, fine. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Clouthier.

Mr. Price.

Mr. David Price: I need a little clarification. Mr. Shaker, you said you had a friend in a VA hospital. As a merchant navy prisoner of war, when were you allowed to have access to VA hospitals? How long has that been? And to follow up that question, just so that you can have the two in mind, do the merchant navy vets, not the POWs, have access to VA hospitals, or have they ever had access?

Mr. George Shaker: I don't really know.

I had my ankle operated on, and in 1947 I went to my family doctor because I had a red streak going up my leg, starting from that scar on my ankle. My doctor asked me where I got the scar, and I told him where I got the scar, and he said, “Well, you'd better go to Christie Street Hospital”, which was the veterans' hospital at that time. I went to Christie Street Hospital and they gave me a penicillin shot in the behind, and the next day they sent me home.

When I applied for my ankle, the pensions doctor had a look at my ankle and said, “That's a pretty good scar. It's okay now. You can't get a pension for that.” And that was the end of that.

So I guess if you had an injury, you were eligible for it, but if you didn't have an injury, you had no chance of getting into a hospital as a merchant navy man, not like the military.

Mr. William Bruce: May I interject before I get thrown out of here?

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. William Bruce: Merchant seamen were admitted in the 1950s, as Mr. Shaker stated, and then they stopped, and then they started again. So we are now entitled to go into Ste. Anne's, the only military hospital left in the country.

Mr. David Price: You said you were admitted in the 1950s and then it stopped.

Mr. William Bruce: It stopped for some reason, I don't know, but it started again.

Mr. David Price: Was it a long period of time?

Mr. William Bruce: I imagine it was for a period of time. I don't know how long.

We have five merchant seamen in Ste. Anne's military hospital. We had seven two weeks ago; two died.

Mr. George Shaker: You had to prove that you were injured during the wartime period to get in.

Mr. David Price: Okay, but that in itself is saying you were looked at as military people.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Price.

The last questioner for these witnesses is Mr. Wood.

Mr. Bob Wood: Mr. Shaker, I was so engrossed in your story, I forgot to ask this. I don't know if you told me this or not, but when did you start getting POW compensation of any kind?

Mr. George Shaker: When did it start?

Mr. Bob Wood: Yes.

Mr. George Shaker: In 1992.

Mr. Bob Wood: Okay. You were talking about some of the post-war benefits available to merchant mariners. Have they been taken into account in your compensation numbers in this brief?

Mr. George Shaker: Yes.

Mr. Bob Wood: Okay.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Wood.

Mr. Bruce and Mr. Shaker, thank you very much for attending this committee today and for your interesting briefs and for taking our questions. We appreciate it very much.

• 1710

Mr. Marsolais has asked to speak to the committee, and now that we have some time, we've agreed to try to give him about five minutes. We didn't realize that he did wish to speak.

Please come forward, Mr. Marsolais. The reason I'm asking you to make your submission in about five minutes is I'd like to give the members a few minutes at least to ask a few questions. We must conclude at 5.30 p.m., as our normal agenda calls for, because we're looking at votes in the House at any time.

So with the committee's agreement—and I assume everybody is agreeable—

Mr. Bob Wood: I've heard some of his story before at a meeting, and I think everybody should get an opportunity to hear Mr. Marsolais.

The Chairman: So if we could ask you to make your submission, sir, in about five minutes, that will give the opportunity for questions. Thank you.

Mr. Willis Marsolais (Individual Presentation): I want to thank you very much. I don't believe I will have the time to present this.

The Chairman: You can do one of two things, Mr. Marsolais: you can table it for the record or you can make a few brief comments and come back.

The problem is this. The committee is certainly open to hearing anyone who wishes to speak to us, but it has to be on a forewarning basis, and I guess maybe there was some misunderstanding on your part of the process. So let me suggest this. You could make a few comments now and come back another time, you could make a few comments and table your brief, or if you don't want to proceed on that basis.... I'll leave it up to you, sir. What would you like to do?

Mr. Willis Marsolais: A few questions were asked here this afternoon. When the U.K. and the Australians became—

The Chairman: So you'd like to address yourself to some of the questions you've already heard?

Mr. Willis Marsolais: That's correct.

The Chairman: Okay, why don't you go ahead and do that?

Mr. Willis Marsolais: Okay.

The British merchant navy became veterans of war in 1939, when the war broke out. The Australians followed in 1940. I sailed on British ships. I can't go through my whole brief, but I'm just saying that in 1939 the British merchant navy were compensated as prisoners of war, everything across the board that they were asking for. They received it in 1939 in Britain. As for the U.S., I don't know, but in Australia it was the same thing.

In 1941 I was taken a prisoner of war aboard a ship called the Danskie, which was a Polish ship. I was wounded that evening and I was taken into Germany. I was thrown into the hospital there, where they took the bullet out of my leg. I was put into a jail and kept there for seven weeks. Then, after seven weeks in jail, I was transferred to where the mariners were in Stalag, where the marine base was. They said they had no room for me there.

I was classified not as a prisoner of war. From what I was told, I was going to be shot, because I was a civilian in a foreign country. Then I was taken to camp 10 near Belgium. I stayed there for seven months. Eight of us were taken out of there and transferred to camp 12.

• 1715

I got home in 1944, thanks to the people of France who helped us get out. When I got over to Kent, I was so happy. I stayed in the hospital in Kent for three months.

I had three brothers overseas. They were in the army. One was a paratrooper, the other were two ordinary soldiers. My brother who was in Scotland was killed in the invasion of Normandy in 1944. I asked the Red Cross if they'd pay my way down to the Beaver Club in London to see my brother, but when I got down to the Beaver Club, his collarbone was broken from a jump.

I came back to Yorkshire. I was only a boy. I didn't know what I got into when I joined the merchant navy. And I suffered, believe me, I think more than anybody else I know of. And I'm suffering today. If you read my brief, everything in there is true.

When I came back to Halifax in 1944, they told me that in Montreal they opened up the Place Viger Hotel for the merchant navy. I got a ticket to Montreal from one of the paymasters. When I got there, my leg was swelled up like a stovepipe. When I got to Montreal, they sent me to the hospital in Montreal.

I hadn't seen my parents. My parents didn't even know where I was. I couldn't get a letter home through the Red Cross whatsoever, because the SS officers wouldn't allow it. They told me at the manning pool in Montreal that I had to join to go down to where these gentlemen were at the engineering school. I had all the experience before. Why did I have to go through it again? This is what I told Captain Richards at the manning pool. I said, “I spent 18 months in prison.” He said, “There's nothing we can do about it. That's the way the Department of Transport works.”

So I was sent to Ottawa. I stopped in to see my parents. When I came back, I was going to be fired, because I went to see my parents. That's how strict the merchant navy was.

Anyway, I went down to the school where these gentlemen were in Prescott, Ontario. I only spent a week there. Then they shipped me to Montreal, back to the manning pool. Captain Richards asked me, “Are you able to work?” I said, “Yes, I am. I am able to work.” He said, “Does your leg bother you?” I said, “Not really.” I was young.

When I stayed at the Place Viger Hotel, I came downstairs one morning and my name was on the board, just like these gentlemen. If they stayed at the Place Viger Hotel, they know that as you came the down the stairs, there was a big board with your name on it. Am I right or wrong?

Mr. William Bruce: That's right.

Mr. Willis Marsolais: It told you what time you were leaving and everything that night. Anybody could have walked into the Place Viger Hotel, any spy of any kind in Canada, and seen what time that boat was leaving. Believe me, there was no security. Am I right?

• 1720

Mr. William Bruce: Right.

Mr. Willis Marsolais: There was no security there whatsoever.

I never got any help from anybody, except the Department of Transport, when I ended up in the hospital in Montreal. The doctor in the hospital said to me, “Who beat your ass?”, because every blood vessel in my back was.... It was a mess. This doctor said to me, “If I get you out of the merchant navy, Mr. Marsolais, I'll send you to live with my parents in Toronto and I'll give you a good education.” I said, “No, thank you. I have brothers overseas; I'm going back.” And I went back sailing.

I went to South America. I went to England 18 times, back and forth. I got back from my last trip in 1946. I didn't go on only one trip; I was on different ships.

The manning pool was in one of the most beautiful hotels in Montreal at that time. The sheets and service were just like the members of Parliament have here on the Hill. Believe me, the service was beautiful.

The Chairman: Not the place I stay in.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Willis Marsolais: Pardon me, then. But at the Vichy Hotel—am I right?—the sheets and the rooms were beautiful, just like a hotel room, and we were well taken care of by the Department of Transport.

I'm not ashamed to say I'm a Liberal and always will be a Liberal. And I'm with no coalition, believe me. I've known Gordon Olmstead for many years. Gordon Olmstead is a gentleman, 100%. He's in my heart. But I worked with Gordon Olmstead, and we didn't agree on a lot of things. Gordon did a lot for the merchant navy, believe me.

I don't know what to say any more, but when my brief comes up another time, I'll be able to continue what I have to say.

The Chairman: That's fine. We appreciate your sharing with us some obviously difficult memories. Thank you very much, sir.

We have time for a couple of brief questions, if anyone has some. No?

Then thank you very much. If you'd like to come back, Mr. Marsolais, you understand now how to contact the clerk, etc.? Okay.

To all three of you gentlemen, thank you very much for sharing your stories with us today and taking our questions. To the rest who have come in support of you, thank you very much.

The committee is adjourned until Thursday morning at 9 o'clock sharp. Thank you.