NDVA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA DÉFENSE NATIONALE ET DES ANCIENS COMBATTANTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 25, 1999

• 1627

[English]

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.)): Order.

Ladies and gentlemen, we're running a little bit late. We were supposed to start this one at 4.15 p.m., but the other meeting lasted a little longer than we'd anticipated.

We're going to go for half an hour with Peter Ambroziak. He was going to go from 4.15 p.m to 4.45 p.m., so now we'll push into 5 p.m. before we bring in the witnesses from Veterans Affairs Canada.

I would ask you to be very judicious in your questions, because we only have half an hour, and as you know, there are votes later on tonight, and we have to have this meeting over by 6 p.m.

Having said that, from the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada, we have Mr. Peter T. Ambroziak, dominion secretary-treasurer.

Mr. Ambroziak, would you make your opening statement, please.

Mr. Peter T. Ambroziak (Dominion Secretary-Treasurer, Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada): Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, and Mr. Chairman.

I have a brief statement, maybe eight minutes long, and from there you can pose your questions.

In our brief to you of April 12, the board of directors of our association endorsed the notion of compensation for the merchant navy veterans of Canada. We say this keeping in mind the fact that there are still unrecognized and uncompensated groups, such as the veterans of ferry command, who served Canada and put their lives on the line during World War II.

What I want to do in this presentation is simply outline what has been presented in the brief. I will look at the position of the Government of Canada with respect to the merchant navy veterans at the end of the war and explain why compensation at this point in time is still justified.

The files of the National Archives of Canada reveal why the government acted the way it did, which at the time made perfect sense to those who made those judgments. Today we may be tempted to judge those decisions in light of contemporary values, but we must keep in mind the atmosphere of total war that prevailed in Canada in the early 1940s. The man or woman in uniform was seen as the principal contributor to the war effort. Anyone not in uniform—a merchant seamen, for instance—was viewed with suspicion. Their world was seen simply as uniformed and non-uniformed.

Let me make a few remarks about why the government took the view it did about merchant seamen, as we see it. To put it another way, why did the government not recognize these merchant seamen as veterans in 1945?

The files clearly show that there were two principal reasons. First, these men who served were classed as civilians and were not enlisted and under no obligation to serve.

In a statement on the merchant navy situation, dated January 29, 1945, J.E. Michaud, the then Minister of Transport, said, “Merchant seamen are all volunteers and are engaged in a civilian capacity.”

This, ladies and gentlemen, sums up the attitude of the government to merchant seamen. Many were employed with private companies and could come and go as they pleased, not bound by law or contract to continue. The exception to this, of course, was for those who served in the so-called manning pools.

Generally, merchant seamen's salaries and compensation were negotiated with their employers and considered better than what the members of the armed forces received. The government considered it a seaman's right to continue as an individual contractor in the employ of a shipping company.

• 1630

The second reason, the plan to continue a merchant fleet after the end of hostilities, was considered reason enough for the government to avoid offering incentives to those seamen to leave the service.

On this point, the Minister of Transport, as referred to previously, stated:

It will be appreciated that if Canada is to maintain a merchant marine after the war, it will not be desirable to encourage our seamen to leave the industry for re-employment in other fields.

At one point in 1945, the newly appointed Minister of Transport, Lionel Chevrier, approached the Minister of Finance to consider the idea of re-establishment credits similar to those received by the members of the armed forces. The idea was rejected because of the cost.

Having taken account of what would appear to be a reasonable explanation for the government's position, how is it that our association supports the award of compensation for lost opportunities?

We believe compensation is justified for four reasons.

Notwithstanding that the compensation received by merchant seamen was considered better than what members of the armed forces received, many seamen were not aware of their eligibility for these many benefits. The record shows that even those who were members of manning pools were out of touch with what was going on at home because of their employment in places like New Zealand. Thus, many lost out through sheer ignorance, especially the many widows who were left with very little and who were unaware of what was owed to them.

Second, of the estimated 9,000 members of the merchant marine at sea in January of 1945, only 4,000 were registered with a manning pool. Therefore, more than half did not participate in the manning pool arrangement.

This comes from a letter by the director of merchant seamen, Mr. Arthur Randles, dated January 22, 1945.

Third, the onus for justifying a claim for benefits was on the shoulders of the individual seaman, since there was no centralized system of recording service such as existed in the armed forces. If they lost their records, they were out of luck.

Finally, some merchant seamen were working for captains who acted like despots. They treated them unjustly with respect to benefits owed. The policy under which they were working stated that when discharged for misconduct—it was then referred to as a “D.R.” discharge—merchant seamen were disqualified for benefits. In the hands of unscrupulous captains, these seamen were sometimes charged with offences, denied the right of redress, dismissed, and written off.

Our conclusion is that given the nature of the circumstances referred to here, we believe those who served in dangerous waters should be granted an ex gratia payment for lost or denied opportunities. They provided an invaluable service to Canada and to the success of the war.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the conclusion of my remarks. I'm available for your questions.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Hec Clouthier): Thanks.

We'll start off first with Mr. Goldring for seven minutes.

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

Thank you very much for your presentation. I'd like to comment on some of your comments.

Your organization is in agreement with some form of ex gratia payment for the merchant navy seamen, but there have been comments made on various amounts, from a high of $200,000, I believe, to another presentation's comment of some $50,000, and then it goes to $20,000.

I would like to have your explanation, and what your feeling is.

With the benefits the merchant navy, relative to the other services, were prevented from having at the end of World War II—the education, the business grants, the land grants, the other opportunities—would it be, in your mind, fair and reasonable that intergenerationally, two or three generations later, the compounding effect of that initial start could well be $100,000 to $200,000, although it may very well be practically impossible to put an accurate figure on it? Could it conceivably be $100,000 to $200,000?

What is your feeling on this?

Mr. Peter Ambroziak: I don't want to be flippant, Mr. Goldring, but I'm not an actuary, and I suspect that somehow this an actuarial question.

Our organization has not attempted to estimate the value that would be attributed or awarded to these merchant seamen. We just don't know.

As I said in my brief, the record is fuzzy, because we were looking at an evolution of benefits for the merchant seamen over a six-year period, from 1939 to 1945, and it changed drastically.

• 1635

As the record shows, they started at about $60 a month as an able seaman and by the end of the war they were making $134 a month with the war-risk bonus. That's just a simple one. It's very complicated.

Mr. Peter Goldring: But is not the crux of the situation the feeling of inequality from the war until this date? I'm not an actuary either, but I certainly do recognize that if my family had a start from World War II with a university education or a land grant or a business grant, over a period of two or three generations that could very well have affected my family's outlook today, and quite dramatically.

Perhaps you could give us your general feeling on the number of $20,000. That seems to be a number that is in recognition, not a number that actually compensates. It is in recognition that there has been inequality from the war to this date. It would be practically impossible to figure out otherwise.

Do you feel that this figure of $20,000 would be a fair and reasonable number?

Mr. Peter Ambroziak: Any number I would pick would have to be based on a comparison with other awards that have already been made, such as to the Hong Kong veterans. They've been awarded about $20,000, tax free.

Quite frankly, I don't know. I don't know what that number should be. It's not even an issue we've addressed. We've addressed the basic issue. The basic question is, are they eligible for benefits or not? Were they treated inequitably or not?

Those are the two basic questions we focused on and addressed. From there, we haven't really addressed it.

Mr. Peter Goldring: And it is your feeling that there has been an inequality and that some redress to that situation should be made.

Mr. Peter Ambroziak: Definitely. It's right there in the record. When you pull out those musty old files from 50 years ago, it's quite clearly there—the claims that were made, the people who...

Individuals had to be responsible for their own service records. For example, if they went overboard, or the ship was sunk, and their records were lost, how were they going to prove that they sailed x number of times in previous ships over the previous three years? They couldn't. They were gone.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Would you comment on their type of service? In the merchant navy, their service was in effect under “sail or jail” orders, but their period of service at sea was practically continuously in a theatre of war, and their type of service was such that attack could come at any moment, any time, night or day. By that very nature, it was a highly hazardous service, and their losses were exceptionally high.

Mr. Peter Ambroziak: My personal reflection is that I'm sure the losses were particularly high at the beginning of the war, when we didn't have our act together with respect to anti-submarine warfare. The records reflect losing all 37 ships we started with as our merchant navy in 1939. Many of those 1,400 were reported as being members of the merchant marine at that time.

I would suspect that as the war wore on and we got much better and much more professional at dealing with convoys and protecting them, the probabilities of being sunk were much less. So I suspect that those seamen who rode the waves in the early part of the war probably had a higher risk of being lost at sea than those who were sailing in 1944 and 1945.

That's another aspect of the question, and one we really didn't get into. It's only a bit of knowledge I've picked up here and there and from reading history books.

Mr. Peter Goldring: But it's fair to say, in conclusion, that your feeling is that it definitely is recognized as a service, as a wartime service, and that its hazards of operation were high. There were inequalities from the war to this date, and that's the purpose of this meeting here—to lend your support to recognize that some redress of that inequality should be made.

Mr. Peter Ambroziak: Yes. One of the aspects of the hazards that we have to appreciate, too, was that when they were out of Canada—they were in England, perhaps, or elsewhere—they were subject to bombardment as well as blackouts and a whole number of other privations they did not have to put up with in Canada. So they were under a significant amount of stress, both to and from their destination.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Having visited Liverpool, I can see the effects of the conditions they would have been under.

That being the case, would they have been on active service when they were on shore in Liverpool, or would that count as their service time?

Mr. Peter Ambroziak: I would be speculating, but as I understood it, they would sign on articles of agreement to sail. There were probably dates given, or whatever conditions were in those articles, to determine the duration of their obligation to serve. It may have gone over those dates if the ship was late or delayed in sailing.

• 1640

So, yes, they were under service and they were under stress the full period of time, until they got back to Halifax, or home waters.

[Translation]

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Hec Clouthier): Mr. Lebel, seven minutes.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): I have no questions.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Hec Clouthier): Fine.

[English]

Mr. Wood.

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

Mr. Ambroziak, a couple of things in your brief, which I read a couple of times, jumped out at me. First, you stated that a number of seamen signed on directly with merchant ships and negotiated their own terms of service. So I take it that some form of contract was signed or agreed to.

The manning pools were, I think, a similar situation, except that people would sign on to a manning pool for up to two years rather than for a single voyage.

In each case, Mr. Ambroziak, the terms were specified, I believe. The service and payment were provided, so the contract was fulfilled.

I think the sad part for us is that we have never seen any examples of those contracts. I ask you, in the research you've done, and the reading, as you mentioned, was there ever any mention of post-war benefits or compensation on those contracts?

Mr. Peter Ambroziak: Yes. With respect to the manning pools, those who signed a manning pool agreement, particularly those that came into effect and listed conditions in 1944 and 1945, were given a number of benefits for that. What the merchant seaman gave up was his right to choose a ship. Once he signed a manning pool agreement, he was obligated to accept the ship that he was given. That provided the government with assurance that it would have crews to man those ships.

For payment of that, they received, for example, the war service bonus, which was 10% of their gross annual earnings, and a number of other benefits, such as free transportation, or continuous pay.

Just as with a professional hockey player, whose salary ends when the season ends, those who were not part of the manning pool were off salary as soon as they finished their voyage. In their case, they continued on salary, although they weren't eligible for the war service bonus.

So if they were concerned about job security or were interested in that, or had a family to support, then it was some degree of assurance that maybe two or three weeks in Halifax between sailings—and I have no idea whether that number is valid—they had an opportunity at least to continue to have regular income and other benefits, such as transportation benefits and so on.

Mr. Bob Wood: It's been clearly stated by a number of witnesses that not all military veterans took advantage of the post-war programs that were available. I know the Royal Canadian Legion has been here. They have suggested that if we go back and start compensating those who did not have full access to these demobilization programs, then they would have to look at the fact that many military veterans, for whatever reason, did not take full advantage of these programs.

The issue, it seems, is one of fairness, because all the members of the merchant navy would be receiving compensation for benefits that many armed forces veterans never utilized.

Mr. Peter Ambroziak: Yes.

Mr. Bob Wood: I'd like your opinion on that particular issue.

Mr. Peter Ambroziak: Well, that's a mitigating factor that I think has to be taken into account when one sits down and asks how much one should award these people, if anything. I think that's an important element to be considered, and I think that would affect the amount of money.

I've seen percentages referred to with regard to people taking advantage of various benefits, and they were under 20% in some cases, depending upon the benefit.

You know, the Veterans' Land Act was there, but I don't think 50%, if that, took advantage of that benefit.

I suspect the experience would have been the same had the merchant seamen been granted the same package of benefits. There would have been a smaller percentage opting in for any number of reasons.

Mr. Bob Wood: You mentioned in your opening statement about some of the other organizations that are still looking for some compensation. I know Mr. Chadderton was here, suggesting there were maybe eight or nine, and the total was maybe 20,000 or 30,000 people who could still come forward and look for some kind of compensation.

Does that jibe with what you think?

Mr. Peter Ambroziak: I don't know if that corresponds, because I haven't given it much thought, and I'm new to the business of veterans benefits and so on. I can only say that I know that there are people, such as the ferry command people, who are pressing for some type of recognition and support.

• 1645

I don't know what those numbers would be. Mr. Chadderton is far more experienced than I am in this field.

Mr. Bob Wood: I just think as an interested third party in this issue—and I've read your brief—you're able to bring some much-needed perspective to this. I find it very interesting that there seems to be such a discrepancy between your interpretation and recommendation for merchant seaman and their own demands.

Both the Royal Canadian Legion and the National Council of Veterans Associations have joined you in recommending modest compensation. For the legion and the NF vets, this recommendation has been attached to both terms of service and the needs of veterans.

Why is it this discrepancy exists between national organizations such as yours and the demands of individual merchant navy associations? Do you know why?

Mr. Peter Ambroziak: Perhaps it's because we're more of a disinterested third party. Although our constituency does have merchant seamen veterans, and we are concerned with their needs, at the same time, personally, I came to the whole field as a novice. I took the research perspective. I could sit in a bar and listen to former veterans, or talk about what was right, what happened, what actually didn't happen and what were the motives—and I heard some of that when people knew I had to focus on this question—but none of it really rang true. I had to go back to the files and look at what the government was facing 55 years ago, and see what was happening with those people.

So my brief reflects that, as do my remarks today. We have to take a balanced approach to this thing, and we're dealing in some cases with human nature. For example, the treatment of crews by some of the masters of ships at the time was pretty cavalier. There certainly weren't then the oversight organizations or bureaucracies that we have today. I'm sure people who were in positions of power could wield that power in whichever manner they wished, certainly in some cases to the detriment of people serving under them.

Mr. Bob Wood: Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman (Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.)): Thank you, Mr. Wood.

Mr. Ambroziak, let me offer my apologies for being late. We have here in Ottawa today David Trimble, first minister-designate in Northern Ireland, which is another interest of mine, as my name would not belie. We just had a very fascinating discussion with him. As many things do around here, they happened at the same time.

You have my apologies for joining the meeting late, and Mr. Clouthier has my thanks for pinch-hitting for me.

We'll go now to Mr. Earle for seven minutes.

Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Chair, I commend you on your new look there.

The Chairman: Warm weather's here.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Just for a little background on your organization, did I understand you to say that some merchant mariners are members of your organization?

Mr. Peter Ambroziak: Yes.

Mr. Gordon Earle: I see.

You mentioned that in order to get a perspective on this, you would have gone back and looked at how the government may have viewed it back when it was making the decisions. In doing that, did you also perhaps get a view from the merchant marines as to how they saw the government treating them at that time?

I know some of the witnesses gave pretty startling accounts of how they felt the government purposely misled them in terms of them continuing on as a mercantile navy, and then bringing in union busters from the States and so forth. They're very strong on that point.

I didn't quite get the impression from your presentation that this was included in the factors in determining...

Mr. Peter Ambroziak: No, my focus was on the benefits that were received or might have been received, or were made available or not made available. That was the principal focus I took.

So I took a very limited sample of the literature. Keep in mind, I was also looking at the literature of the Department of Transport, so they would have had a limited representation of information with respect to the parties outside of the department. Still, there was correspondence in the file from the Canadian Seamen's Union with respect to negotiations on the war service bonus, some of the Orders in Council that were issued in 1944 and 1945, and they were basically representing the interests of their membership with respect to some of these benefits. That was there.

• 1650

Mr. Gordon Earle: Right. I was thinking that might account in part for the concern Mr. Wood had about why there exists such differing opinions from one group to the next. I think what happens is that some groups will take a limited look at certain information.

I think some of the witnesses have taken a very thorough look at all the information. If they come with a personal perspective as well on how it affected them, then perhaps we're getting a little closer to what the reality of the situation might be.

I notice in your recommendations, though, that you do recommend that there should be a position adopted where some compensation is paid. You say, “These payments should be based on the individual circumstances of the claimant.” But you also mention in your brief that the onus for keeping records fell upon the individual.

I think in a lot of cases, there may be a number of individuals who have difficulty documenting and proving this. In a case of that, are you recommending that the benefit of the doubt be given to these merchant mariners, based upon their experience and what they bring forth, or do you feel that the government should be insisting upon records that perhaps are almost impossible for the person to produce?

Mr. Peter Ambroziak: I suspect there's not a strong streak of bureaucracy in this group, and I suspect you have a better perspective of this whole question than I do, having heard all of the evidence from all of the witnesses. I'm only coming from a small and limited perspective.

I would say that, to some degree, judgment has to be exercised in this. For example, some of the criteria I was alluding to there would be that some merchant seamen were sailing the Great Lakes during the war. They weren't on foreign-going ships. But any member of the manning pool was on a foreign-going ship, because it was manning pools that provided crews for ships crossing the oceans, leaving the country.

So a simple criterion would be that if you were a member of a manning pool, then definitely you're eligible.

Mr. Gordon Earle: But you would give the benefit of the doubt to people who perhaps were not members of the manning pool but have come forth with reasonable information concerning their circumstances, but for whatever reason are unable to document that. Would you consider that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the merchant mariner?

Mr. Peter Ambroziak: The numbers dictate that you have to. As I indicated, in 1945 only 4,000 of the 9,000 merchant seamen sailing were members of the manning pool, for any number of reasons.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Right.

Finally, does your organization have any records that would be of assistance in terms of identifying some of the people who may be eligible for whatever is determined to be compensation?

Mr. Peter Ambroziak: At this point, I can only say I wish I did. I don't believe I do, although I haven't really looked closely. I've been in the job nine months, and I've been going through a ton of paper in our office, paper we've collected since 1918. I don't believe we have those kinds of records, although I certainly would be open to looking.

Anything I can do to help the committee reach a decision I would certainly do.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Earle.

Mrs. Wayne for seven minutes.

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

I think probably you are aware that a lot of the merchant navy men were taken as prisoners of war. One gentleman who came before us told us that his boat was torpedoed when he was 14 years old. He was a prisoner of war for three years. He was 17 years old before he got out of that prison.

When he was a prisoner of war, right there in Germany, they treated him exactly the same as all the others, whether they were army, navy or air force.

He told us about how, as a young man, he had to march each morning. Sometimes they didn't have clothes and sometimes they didn't have anything to eat. Once, somebody spit in an officer's face, and they blamed it on him. They took him and put him in a little room that was about four feet wide and three feet long. They kept him there for four months. They told him he was going to be shot when he came out. He begged them to shoot him while he was in there. He begged them to shoot him because of the horrible conditions.

Some of the stories we have been made aware of with regard to what these men have gone through are unbelievable, just unbelievable. I think you would agree that they were in dangerous waters just as were our other naval people and our other veterans at that time or other members of the armed forces. They were in just as dangerous waters.

One thing that bothers me is that if a boat was torpedoed and a member of our army, navy, or air force was hurt, they were taken care of, but these men here were not taken care of.

• 1655

We're told that some in the military did not take advantage of certain benefits, but those benefits were there for them. These men didn't have those benefits. If the benefits were there, I'm sure a whole lot of them would have taken advantage of them.

When I see and when I hear about all they've had to do in order to assist the army, navy, and air force—and now we've recognized them as the fourth arm of the services, which took us a long time to do—then I feel that the minute we recognize them as the fourth arm of the services, then it's time to say now they're equal. But they should have been equal for the last 50-odd years.

I want to know how you feel about that. I mean, these men were prisoners of war. If it wasn't for their going over there and taking the chances they did to get all that was required for our other men who were over there in the military, our men who were over there would not have had what they needed—ammunition, guns, clothing, food, and everything else.

These men played a major role—a major role—and we are long overdue in recognizing these men and giving them some form of compensation.

I'd just like your comments on that.

Mr. Peter Ambroziak: I have to agree with you. Having served in the armed forces for 17 years, some of those years in the logistics branch, I appreciate fully the value of an army marching on its stomach. Without supply lines, you don't exist. You evaporate in seven days.

Soldiers at the front carry only 24 hours' worth of ammunition and food with them. If you cut off their supply lines, they're dead. That's what they're doing in Kosovo today.

It goes without saying that without the merchant navy, the war would not have been won. It's as simple as that.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: When Cliff Chadderton came before us at one time he included in his presentation a breakdown of how he felt the compensation should be worked out. He had a formula. If you made one trip over and back, I think it was around $5,000, or if you made so many trips over and back, and so on and so forth. That formula was one that I felt at the time should perhaps be given some consideration.

Then there were presentations made to us that it should be just a $20,000 lump sum.

All I'm going to say on this, Mr. Chairman, is this. I honestly believe, in my heart and soul, the world will keep its eyes on Canada to see if indeed we finally—finally—will compensate these men as we should. I don't know what the formula is, but we have to make up our minds. We have only a couple of weeks in order to put that report in there.

There has to be some form of compensation so that finally we can say, “Yes, we recognize what they did, and recognize all of the dangers and perils they went through.” Finally Canada is saying “yes” like the U.S., and “yes” like Great Britain. Great Britain did it during the war, right at the very beginning, and the United States has as well. We have not, and it is an embarrassment that we have not.

That's how I feel about it, sir.

Mr. Peter Ambroziak: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Wayne.

If the members wish, we could have a second round of questions. If there are no questions, we could excuse the witness.

Mr. Goldring, we'll start with you. Do you have other questions?

Mr. Peter Goldring: Yes, I do.

The Chairman: All right, Mr. Goldring, you have five minutes.

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

I'd like to ask a question relative to the comments made previously that a form of ex gratia payment or compensation might very well be unfair to the members of the armed forces in that not all of them took advantage of all of the programs that were available.

I'd like to have your comment on it, because I believe what we're doing here is confusing issues. What we're really talking about here is that the merchant navy members were denied this opportunity, that they did not have this opportunity to access it. Somewhere in there has to be a real reason for redressing that situation.

Now, following the Second World War, why did this happen, in your mind? How could this have happened? Could you speculate or give us your feeling or your group's feeling on how this could happen? Was there anything relative to Communist conspiracy, Hal Banks, the union, union activities, the government itself?

• 1700

In other words, why, in your mind, would this situation have been allowed to develop that prevented these merchant navy people from accessing what the other armed forces could access?

As well, do you really think it's fair at all to try to compare that today as a reason for not redressing this—that is, that somebody else may make a claim? What is your comment on that?

Mr. Peter Ambroziak: If we go back in time and look at the files of the time, in 1945, when the transport department was looking at the whole question of re-establishment...and certainly the Department of National Defence was in the middle of it.

Some of the long-term planning issues had to be, “What do we do with a million men in uniform?” I pulled that figure out of the air; it may have been a million and a half, or it may have been 800,000. I don't know. But a large number of men and women were in uniform and had to be re-established.

They weren't going to keep the military at nearly the same size they had during the war. So that whole question was front and centre on the table of all of those long-range strategic planners.

In the case of the transport department, they indeed had ambitions to become a world-class mercantile fleet. They wanted to sail the ocean and make tons of money for Canada, because they had constructed those many, many hundreds of ships during the war years. I know my father built many of them, because he was in the shipbuilding business.

So they had those ships at hand. They had the crews. They didn't want to get rid of them. They didn't want to disband that at all. They saw that as a money-making opportunity for Canada.

This was part of the reason they denied these merchant seamen the opportunities. In fact, if you look at the record, it shows that they offered young men—and I say young because they set an age limit of something like 30—with certain qualifications the opportunity to go back to the various colleges they had set up during the war to retrain and acquire such higher-level skills as engineering and navigational skills and so on to man these ships.

So they were keen on building a merchant navy. They weren't interested in dismantling it. That's one of the reasons, I believe, they just ignored the whole question of re-establishment.

Mr. Peter Goldring: So the merchant navy seamen were innocent parties to torpedoing by a government plan that went wrong.

Mr. Peter Ambroziak: Yes, I would say so. I believe the whole union busting and so on came in well after the war. I didn't look at that aspect of the history, so it's completely new to me other than what I know from seeing Cliff Chadderton's film, Sail or Jail.

Up until 1945 and early 1946, they were interested in building a mercantile navy, or keeping a mercantile navy, and sailing the ocean for Canada.

Mr. Peter Goldring: To be very clear on that, this claim or this request for this grievance to be addressed is a catch-up in terms of 45 years, and it is very valid because of the denial of equality from the war until this date. It should not be affected by factoring in other elements. The regular services had the opportunity. The merchant navy did not.

Mr. Peter Ambroziak: Yes. They didn't have the opportunity.

Keep in mind, though, that there were some benefits received by merchant seamen during the war, such as the war-risk bonus, which wasn't there for the armed forces, and the opportunity to sail or not sail if they weren't part of the manning pool. I imagine that was one of the reasons many of them didn't go to the manning pool, because they had the freedom to turn down a trip. Maybe they didn't want to go to Murmansk or lovely places like that in mid-December.

So I suspect that was some of the motivation behind their choice of the staying away from the manning pools notwithstanding the benefits, which appeared quite generous.

Mr. Peter Goldring: My understanding, though, is that many of them went on repeat voyages.

Mr. Peter Ambroziak: Yes.

Mr. Peter Goldring: As a matter of fact, most went on repeat voyages.

Mr. Peter Ambroziak: I know my uncle did. My uncle was a merchant mariner and made more than one trip to Murmansk.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Goldring.

On the majority side, are there any questions? No?

Then we'll go to you, Mr. Earle. Do you have any other questions?

Mr. Gordon Earle: Yes. It's more or less a comment, but it may take the form of a question.

In your paper you say you did a limited review of this. When you read some of this and take it in isolation, it almost looks very favourable for the merchant mariners. For example, you say:

A comparison of remuneration received by the RCN member and a member of the Merchant Seamen Manning Pool shows that the single Merchant Seaman did receive more money.

• 1705

I think we have to balance this, though, with the kinds of conditions under which the merchant seamen operated as well. We know they went over in ships that weren't adequately protected. They were quite often in the front line. They didn't have the type of equipment that someone in the Royal Navy may have had.

I suppose we might look at it perhaps as danger pay, but in terms of the circumstances they were faced with, it wasn't as though one was getting something more favourable than the other. I think the more money, if that's the case, was certainly balanced off by the kinds of danger and loss they faced. The death rate was quite a bit more substantial, as I understand from looking at the history of this, for the merchant mariners than it was for the others.

I think we have to put that in perspective, then, so that it doesn't read as though, well, you go through these favourable conditions and then that mitigates the importance or the necessity of coming to a fair and reasonable settlement for these men.

I just wanted to make that comment. Perhaps you want to respond to it. I think we want to be sure that when we deal with this, we're dealing with it in a fair way, taking into consideration all the factors that are relevant.

Mr. Peter Ambroziak: In my brief I referred to the fact that when you compared an able seaman—as I think I did, and you referred to there—with a married member of the military, their income on an annual basis was comparable. It was pretty equivalent. Again, married military people were given an extra bonus.

That's why it's not a straightforward compensation question. It's a question that evolved over six years, and is very complicated. Benefits were changed and added; I would say “taken away”, but they were added and changed. There was an awful lot of mutation over six years.

So it's not a very straightforward question. I don't envy you your position of having to figure out what to do with this. It's a difficult question.

I wasn't being flippant when I referred to an actuary. I really think somebody with actuarial experience would probably find this a wrestling match.

Mr. Gordon Earle: For me, it goes a little bit deeper than having actuarial experience. I think it goes to a matter of the heart.

Mr. Peter Ambroziak: That too, yes.

Mr. Gordon Earle: We have to balance everything, look at it, and then do what's right. Sometimes you can juggle figures and come out with the actuarial tables and so forth, but they still may not represent the truth of the issue.

Mr. Peter Ambroziak: That's right.

Mr. Gordon Earle: I think that's where we have to be careful in this issue.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Earle.

Are there any other questions from any colleagues?

Seeing none, then, Mr. Ambroziak, thank you very much for being here today and for sharing your insight into what is, as you termed it, a very complex and difficult issue. It's an issue we are coming to the end of and hope to resolve in the next few meetings.

Thank you very much. We appreciate it.

Mr. Peter Ambroziak: Thank you.

The Chairman: I now invite Mr. Dave Nicholson, Deputy Minister of the Department of Veterans Affairs, to come forward.

While Mr. Nicholson and staff are getting seated, I'll just indicate to colleagues that this delegation represents our final witnesses on this matter. Everyone who has asked for an opportunity to appear has appeared. We've heard, as you know, a lot of testimony. This will be our final piece of testimony, and then we will refer this. Staff will be working on a brief draft report for us. We will work out a timetable.

I'd just like to alert everyone that maybe on Thursday we can look at the timetable for coming to a decision on this issue and for getting the report back from staff. Ideally, of course, I would think that should be tabled in the House before we recess for the summer, which is an uncertain date.

Maybe on Thursday, at the end of the meeting from about 10.30 a.m. until 11 a.m., we could set aside the last few minutes, if necessary, to get into the logistics of how we finish this important matter at the committee. That's just to bring that to your attention.

Welcome, Mr. Nicholson, and thank you very much. It's nice to see you again.

Would you introduce the colleagues who are with you, please.

Mr. David Nicholson (Deputy Minister, Department of Veterans Affairs): Thank you very much, Mr. President.

With me today is Mr. Richard Brunton, director of portfolio legislation; Mr. Martin MacDonald, program officer, legislation and policy division; and Monsieur Alex Robert, portfolio executive services.

• 1710

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I have an opening statement. It will be very short, between four and five minutes.

I'm here today in response to your request that I appear before your committee to assist with your inquiry into matters respecting Canada's merchant navy veterans.

Your committee has heard first-hand testimony from veterans who lived the post-war years. The Department of Veterans Affairs does not have any eyewitnesses to provide testimony on the deliberations and perspectives of the 1940s, and that is of course unfortunate. We have, however, the archival and statistical records from that time as well as current-day information. I trust that these will be helpful to your inquiry.

In that regard, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to provide copies of two key historical documents—the May 9, 1945, statement by the Minister of Veterans Affairs on veterans benefits for the merchant navy, and the May 1945 brochure issued by the Minister of Transport.

I believe it is fair to say that there has been a perception out there that those who served in the wartime merchant navy are somehow not being served by Veterans Affairs Canada. This is emphatically not the case.

Legislation passed by Parliament in 1992 extended full veteran status to merchant navy veterans and provided them with equal access to all currently available veterans benefits. Departmental employees have worked hard to ensure that merchant navy applicants receive all the help and assistance we can provide.

The results are there for all to see. Over 2,000 merchant navy clients are today receiving benefits from Veterans Affairs.

Notwithstanding these results, some merchant navy representatives believe their status as veterans would be clearer if Parliament were to enact legislation that details their eligibility in the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Pension Act instead of through cross-references from the merchant navy legislation.

The representatives also ask that the legislation make more explicit references to there being disability pension coverage for service in manning pools and their training schools, to provide just two examples.

Bill C-61, which came into force on May 1 of this year, responded favourably to those recommendations. If there were any doubts anywhere about merchant navy veterans being veterans, those doubts should now be wholly dispelled. They are veterans.

Mr. Chairman, the committee has asked what our Allied countries have done for their merchant navy veterans. I am tabling a detailed response to that question.

You will note from the information provided that none of the Allied countries has done better by their merchant navy than Canada, be it during the war years, the post-war years, or now.

Let me also confirm that none of these countries has paid compensation for benefits or programs for which veterans were not eligible or for which they did not apply, and nor has any Allied country made their benefit enhancement legislation retroactive.

We have all seen the film footage of the convoys going across the Atlantic facing the U-boat packs. We have heard about the merchant ships sunk in the St. Lawrence River. The message in those clips has often been this: How could those brave sailors be abandoned by their country? The answer is, they were not.

A 1939 Order in Council extended death and disability pensions to members of the merchant navy killed or disabled in any action or counteraction with the enemy. Similarly, the survivors of merchant sailors killed in an enemy attack would receive the same pensions as the survivors of armed forces veterans.

So the convoys were covered in this way from the early days of the war, as were all the ships sunk in the gulf and up the St. Lawrence River. That coverage was equal to that provided by Britain for British merchant mariners.

I mention Britain because it is the nation having the most long-standing seafaring experience of all the Allies. Britain acted very quickly to extend veteran-type benefits to its merchant navy.

• 1715

On September 3, 1939, the very same day Britain and France declared war against Germany, the British Parliament passed the Pensions (Navy, Army, Air Force and Mercantile Marine) Act. This was later amended by the Pensions Act in 1942. Both acts contain no benefits in themselves, but were enabling acts allowing the British government to make regulations, called “schemes”, to mariners in respect of benefits for their war injuries.

The first such regulation was the War Pensions and Detention Allowances Mercantile Marine Scheme. The current in-force version of this regulation is the War Pensions Scheme, 1964.

Again, these regulations provided no benefits by themselves. Instead, they worked by cross-reference with other regulations governing disability benefits for the British Armed Forces.

All the mercantile marine scheme does is define merchant navy service; set out which naval ranks correspond to which merchant mariner ranks; and declare which disability and survivors pension for the armed forces may be granted to those who served in the merchant navy. Thus, the British wartime merchant navy is in no way included in the British veterans legislation. Instead, they have been given access to a defined set of British veterans benefits by cross-reference.

The scope of recognition is ocean-going and harbour service, but not service on land. It is not in the same legislation as concerns our armed forces veterans.

The benefits correspond roughly only with Canada's pension program but without the insurance principle and based only on enemy action or counteraction against the enemy. There is no veterans income support or health care program, since these are provided to the citizenry in general.

There is no retroactivity. Benefits are effective when applied for, prospectively only. It is important to note that although Britain has extended for a long time many of its armed forces veterans benefits to its merchant navy personnel, and so would appear at first glance to have no concern with regard to retroactivity, those benefits have many limitations compared with the other Allies, including Canada. Most notably, the mercantile marine scheme specifically excludes a number of provisions in the benefit legislation that applies to British naval veterans.

I have just three final points. The committee heard testimony that there was a one-year time limit on death or disability claims for merchant navy veterans or their survivors. That is true. However, the legislative history also shows that the one-year limit was overruled by other provisions until legislation in 1971 ultimately repealed it altogether.

I might add that time limits were a feature of veterans legislation up until the Second World War, and were repeatedly extended for the good reason that there can be no statute of limitations on what a country owes to those who served it in wartime.

The second point concerns recognition. This principally concerns Remembrance Day. The Royal Canadian Legion has organized a national Remembrance Day ceremony for decades. There is an annual formality of a letter from the Minister of Veterans Affairs, but as Canada's largest veterans organization, comprising a majority of all veterans in Canada, they run the ceremony.

The order of ceremony has the viceregal party laying its wreaths first, followed by the veterans organizations and the VIP section. The viceregal party includes one, and one only, veterans organization, the Royal Canadian Legion. It lays a wreath on behalf of all veterans, including merchant navy veterans.

The veterans organization party includes the merchant navy associations along with all other groups, including the National Council of Veterans Associations, the Army, Navy, Air Force Veterans in Canada, the Hong Kong Veterans' Association, the Dieppe Veterans and Prisoners of War Association, and the National Aboriginal Veterans Association.

This is an arrangement that stresses equality of recognition, and it complements the approach taken in veterans legislation and policy that all veterans are equally deserving of Canada's respect and remembrance.

Third, and finally, is the question of merchant navy population numbers. As many of the committee members are aware, the department has been content to use the population numbers developed by the Merchant Navy Coalition. We suspect those numbers are understated, but no hard data exists to confirm that view. The sad truth is, most of the personnel files of the wartime merchant navy were destroyed a year after the war. Today, as a result, it is impossible to get an accurate count of how many served.

• 1720

From an historical perspective, the department's best guess in 1992 was that 18,000 people served in the merchant navy during the Second World War. That total included an estimated 5,000 Newfoundlanders as well as an estimate of the number of Canadians who served in Allied merchant navies.

If we then apply mortality factors, the merchant navy population alive today would be in the order of 4,600 people.

Again, there are no records existing today to back that up, nor any practical means of finding out exactly how many merchant navy veterans or survivors may be alive today. Anyone's guess is as valid as another's, and that, while truly regrettable, is a reality.

Mr. Chairman, I trust the information provided has been helpful to the committee. We are at your disposal for any questions you or your members may have.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Nicholson, for that overview of the situation.

I'm sure there are questions, and we'll go right to those, starting with Mr. Goldring of the Reform Party for seven minutes.

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

Welcome, gentlemen.

Thank you very much, Mr. Nicholson, for your brief.

I'd like to ask some questions about the numbers and then questions in general.

Has there ever been any attempt to determine what numbers of men served in the merchant navy? Because we're involved with individual ships at sea, and with different depots they sailed from, I have to ask you, have all records of that been destroyed?

If records have been destroyed, has there ever been an attempt to determine the numbers by polling, by inviting people to come forward, by trying to find out from the veterans themselves? They are members of various veterans groups. Has there ever been any attempt to try to determine the number of veterans?

As well, why would the estimate figures be so different between your estimations and the Merchant Navy Coalition's, which has been representing a number of the veterans for a number of years? Why would these numbers be different? Has there been any attempt to see whether it is 2,000 or 4,000?

Mr. David Nicholson: Mr. Goldring, perhaps I'll address the several questions you've posed by responding to your last question.

As I said in my opening statement, we've accepted the numbers that have been provided by the merchant navy associations, which comes to around 2,300. I guess based against that number, the take-up for those who are receiving an allowance or a pension or another service from the department indicated a very high percentage.

I've asked the question of our officials as to how deeply we have dug into the historical record to determine the population of merchant navy who served during the war, 1939 to 1945. That's where the figure of 18,000 came up.

There are still some records that were provided to us from the Department of Transport. The records are incomplete. Some of those were destroyed.

When I indicated that there could potentially be as many as 4,600, I'm simply saying that if you look at the experience we've had with the uniformed military and apply the mortality rate we've experienced over the years since the close of the war in 1945, you come up with an estimate of 4,600.

In terms of ascertainment, have we gone out and surveyed or polled? We have not gone out and surveyed or polled. As you probably know, we're decentralized across the country, with 5 regional offices and 26 district offices. I like to think our staff is quite proactive. I also believe either the Merchant Navy Coalition or one of its groups at one time did a bit of an ascertainment to see how many merchant navy veterans were out there, but we did not as a department.

• 1725

Mr. Peter Goldring: A 1958-59 annual report issued for Veterans Affairs indicates government expenditures, from 1945 to 1959 for armed forces veterans, of some $500 million. I would imagine that would be all well documented, and that there would be records on those expenditures. It would be a matter, if there was sincere interest to find numbers, of determining...

With your estimation of the number of merchant navy members as being some 18,000 to the overall 1 million in armed forces uniform, that would be relative to a 50:1 ratio. Somebody could, actuarially, plug in a number to see if the merchant navy participated in the Veterans Affairs expenditures at a ratio relative to their numbers.

Mr. David Nicholson: Oh, yes, Mr. Goldring, but we have that. I provided that to the committee in my information.

I guess what I'm attempting to say is that the only information we have on veterans, whether they're merchant navy veterans or from the other services, is with regard to those who are receiving the benefit or a service from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The information we provided on our fact sheet here is from our records.

Yes, you could go back to those years in the late fifties. I'm sure we could reconstruct for you the numbers at that time. But remember, it would only be for those who were in receipt of a benefit from the department at that time.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Yes, it would, but would that not also, on a 50:1 ratio, pull up a figure of $10 million that has been spent on merchant navy applicants up to that time, if they had received their share of benefits?

What I'm saying, in other words, is that if that number relative to the number of the merchant navy seamen who served shared in that amount, that would put to rest a lot of the arguments that are suggesting that they did not, or might not have, or might have shared in it—in other words, a 50:1 ratio on that number up to that date.

Mr. David Nicholson: Yes, you could do that. I might venture, though, that it would be a bit imprecise.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Well, it would certainly be relative to the numbers of merchant navy seamen as compared with the numbers of the men and women who served in the armed forces as veterans.

In other words, you can pull up a number, although I'm pleased to hear that you are prepared to accept the opinion of some 2,300 members of the merchant navy seamen, as put forward by the committees themselves.

Mr. David Nicholson: Yes, but you must remember, I've also said we believe that is understated.

Mr. Peter Goldring: All right.

I would like to have your comment on the suggestion I made—and many of the members seem to be in agreement—that the issue seems to be the lack of opportunity from the war until this date. Although some catch-ups were made in the 1992 legislation, the fact still remains that there was the period of time from the war to that, and then some still until this date.

Are you not in agreement that if there is any form of inequality given to the merchant navy—whether it's land grants, education grants, or other things—that has impacted on their lives unfairly as compared with other war veterans from the war until this date?

Mr. David Nicholson: If I may, Mr. Goldring, I don't believe that's a question that should be answered by a public servant.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Goldring.

We certainly can recall any political people we would like to recall, or we will be discussing this and so on. Maybe you can pursue that at another time.

We would normally go now to the next party, but I don't see a representative, so I'll come to this side now. That's our process.

For seven minutes, Mr. Bertrand.

Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I'd like to welcome all of you to our committee this afternoon.

I have a question on retroactivity. It has been brought to our attention on a number of occasions that a lot of the Allied nations who have passed legislation did indeed introduce retroactivity. From the information I have received this afternoon, this does not seem to be the case.

Can you comment on that, please?

Mr. David Nicholson: Yes, I can comment on that. We've done an extensive search with our Allies in this area to determine unequivocally whether or not there was retroactivity. We have concluded from our research that there has not been.

• 1730

Mr. Robert Bertrand: I notice that Britain passed it in the 1950s, I believe, and even in their case there was no retroactivity whatsoever.

The other thing I noticed in the paper you presented was that in most of the countries, it was ocean-going service only.

Could you, for a landlubber like me, explain what that means?

Mr. David Nicholson: Well, I could, but this man here is my expert in ocean-going matters.

Mr. Brunton.

Mr. Richard Brunton (Director, Portfolio Legislation, Department of Veterans Affairs): Thank you, sir.

Ocean-going service would mean actual voyages as opposed to what Bill C-61 did recently—that is, recognize manning pool service on land, here in Canada. You were a member of the manning pool here in Canada until they assigned you to a ship. Then, from that moment on, on that ship when it made its voyage, that would be ocean-going service.

As you can see, you're quite right; most of the Allies we studied—and we studied five of them—recognized only ocean-going service.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: From some of the groups we met, we heard that in Canada we recognized not only on the ocean but also...

What is the expression for “close to the harbours”?

Mr. David Nicholson: Home trade?

Mr. Robert Bertrand: Is it perhaps dangerous waters?

Mr. Richard Brunton: Dangerous waters is another expression, yes.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: I think that's more encompassing than ocean-going service, is it not?

Mr. Richard Brunton: In Canada we used, back in the war years, the term “dangerous waters”, defined as the waters that rendered a merchant mariner eligible for the war-risk bonus. For most of the war, all the waters, all the oceans of the world, were defined for that purpose as dangerous waters, and therefore qualified a person for the war-risk bonus.

Take Australia as an example. They don't use in their legislation the term dangerous waters, and they don't appear to use in their legislation the term war-risk bonus. What they have defined as eligible service to be recognized as a merchant navy veteran in their terms—an “Australian merchant mariner” is I think the term they use—is a voyage that went from or to a port in Australia to a port in another part of the world.

It amounts to virtually the same thing. We would have recognized those waters. For example, in a voyage from Australia to New Zealand, we would have recognized that as a voyage in dangerous waters, or war-risk-bonus waters, and we recognize it now in our current Bill C-61 legislation. The Australians recognize it through their terminology.

The point is, the Australian equivalent of the manning pool or service on land isn't mentioned in their legislation. It's only the service on voyages that is mentioned.

The Chairman: There are a few minutes left in Mr. Bertrand's time.

Are there any other questions at this point from the colleagues there?

Then we'll go to Mr. Earle for seven minutes.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to return to the retroactivity question a bit as well, because I'm not sure I completely understand it.

I understand what you're saying, that none of the other countries made their benefits retroactive, but did not some of these other countries recognize and give benefits at a much earlier time in history than did Canada?

Mr. Richard Brunton: No. Britain recognized and provided their limited benefits to the British merchant mariner on September 3, 1939. Actually, the scheme they passed pursuant to that act came into force about one month later.

• 1735

Canada passed its first Order in Council that provided its merchant navy veterans with exactly the same benefit—pensions for death and disability due to enemy 1939, actually the scheme that they passed pursuant to action. That's what the British had done, and we then followed suit, as did Australia and New Zealand.

I was unable to find the earliest French legislation prior to their defeat by Nazi Germany. The United States didn't provide any veterans benefits to their merchant navy until 1988, as recently as that.

So Canada was right in there with Britain, Australia, and New Zealand in providing the beginnings, the first benefit—namely, the pensions for disability and death due to enemy action—right at the very beginning of the war.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Did these other countries allow the opportunities that the merchant mariners are seeking compensation for now? For example, did the other countries enable their merchant mariners, when they came home after the war, to get into employment? Did they provide educational opportunities for them? Did they assist them in any way?

Mr. Richard Brunton: I can't give you a firm answer on Australia and New Zealand, but I found no sign of such benefits in the French veterans code. In the case of the United States, no, they did not.

In the case of Britain, the issue came to a head at the end of the war. The British government explicitly rejected the benefits of the type you mention, what we call in Canada the “demobilization benefits”, for the merchant navy.

Mr. Churchill himself and one of his ministers...at two different times. You'll see this reported in the statement of Mr. Mackenzie, the Minister of Veterans Affairs. We've provided that in your materials. They quoted from the British statements of the time. They explicitly rejected the type of benefits that the Canadian merchant navy veteran of today wishes to receive compensation for not getting.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Did other countries give those kinds of benefits to their regular forces?

Mr. Richard Brunton: Yes.

Mr. Gordon Earle: In other words, they mistreated their merchant mariners in the same way Canada mistreated theirs.

Mr. Richard Brunton: May I use the word... A public servant can't use the word “mistreated”, sir.

Mr. Gordon Earle: That's unparliamentary, is it, “un-bureaucratic”?

Mr. David Nicholson: I think what's fair to say is that the merchant navy veterans did not have access to all veterans benefits in the immediate post-war years. We agree with that statement, yes.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Under the civilian act I think merchant navy veterans had difficulty accessing the department's hospital or community beds without some bureaucratic intervention, right? I think there was some indication given that, under Bill C-61, this would change. Will there be any effort made to fast-track their applications now?

Mr. David Nicholson: I think it's important, Mr. Earle, that we remember that we treated all veterans equally, including merchant navy veterans.

As for bureaucratic convention, I guess that's another way of describing our role as public servants within the Department of Veterans Affairs. We are involved in the placement of patients in our veterans' independence beds, community beds, and in our priority access beds.

Is there a priority basis? It's based, yes, on need, the urgency of need.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Okay.

I just want to make sure I understand the bottom line in terms of your presentation. We've had several witnesses—several organizations and various individuals—come before us, and basically the common denominator seems to be that most feel the merchant mariners deserve some form of compensation for lost opportunity following the war.

When I look at your presentation, I get the understanding that your presentation is saying something quite different. Am I correct?

Mr. David Nicholson: What we're attempting to do here, really, is to describe, as accurately and as factually as we can, programs and benefits that are now available to the merchant navy since 1992.

In terms of any commentary on really what's at the heart of your deliberations here, that's not for us. Before we arrived here today, we had a meeting in my office. We're here to answer your questions and not put this spin or that spin on it, but to come right down the middle in terms of the facts.

• 1740

With regard to any questions you raise in that area, we're prepared here to give you all we have, but when it comes to the purpose of this committee's deliberations and what you may do, we would prefer not to comment on that. We'll just provide you with whatever evidence you need.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Thank you.

The Chairman: Before I go to Mrs. Wayne, I'd like to say that's well said. I think we can ask whatever factual questions we have. I think we all appreciate some of the comparative data that's been submitted.

It's not for Mr. Nicholson or his colleagues to make the ultimate decision here. It's our job to make a recommendation of one type or another. We'll have a report from staff very shortly, which we'll table in the House shortly thereafter. We'll hear what this committee decides, and then it'll be in the hands of the minister.

I think Mr. Nicholson's job, as he's doing, is to give us that factual comparative data, and we appreciate that.

We'll now go to Mrs. Wayne for seven minutes.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Thank you very much.

I noted that Mr. Brunton was saying they couldn't find anything in their research where the merchant navy veterans were made equal in the past, but in 1968 the Government of Norway gave all benefits to their merchant navy men. These benefits included all the same benefits as the regular forces.

These benefits were not offered prior to 1968. They weren't retroactive, but they were 24 years ahead of us. In 1992, under that civilian war veterans allowance act, we did give some benefits to our people. They were 24 years ahead of us in doing what they did.

I've asked for a copy of that legislation with regard to the Government of Norway. It's three weeks ago that we asked, but we're still waiting for it.

I also spoke to the gentleman who led the change for benefits. He said this happened in 1968, 23 years ago.

Like my colleague, I have to say, whether every other country did or did not make them equal, if one hears what they went through, there is no question in my mind, and in the minds of most Canadians, that they should receive some form of compensation so that they feel that in what they did, they did a job for us here, to give us the peace that we have.

In 1992, when the civilian war veterans allowance act came in, a budget of $100 million came with it. My understanding is that it went down to $88 million. I did ask where the $88 million went, and no one has been able to answer that.

Can you people tell me where that $88 million went, sir?

Mr. David Nicholson: Yes, I think I can answer that.

First of all, the initial estimate that was made was first made public in a ministerial statement on, I believe, June 4, 1992. The estimate was that the provisions of Bill C-84, when it came into effect, would have a five-year cost of $100 million. That was later revised to $88 million. These were estimates that were made by the Department of Veterans Affairs at that time based on the information they had in terms of the population of merchant navy veterans at that time.

However, as you know, it's not a cash item. Like every other appropriation, it's a reference level that's given to the department. The take-up in that has been somewhat less than what was estimated. I guess you could say it was poor estimating on behalf of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Since I was there at the time, I'd accept that.

We over-provided in terms of the estimates. I guess we felt there would be more coming in. I know we felt that given the age and the service of the merchant navy, most likely there would be more applications for disability pension than eventually there were.

As you know, there are right now about 294 veterans in pension and 145 survivors. The majority of those receiving a service from us are what we call “near recipients”, which means if they weren't getting OAS and GIS, they would be entitled to the war veterans allowance.

• 1745

We call them near recipients because we want to continue to extend to them the other services that go with WVA, so we give them health care and VIP.

So that's where it is. There is no bank account with $40 million sitting in it. It's a reference level that's given out by government.

As you can tell by our records, year over year over year, when we have provided an accounting to the Parliament of Canada, we do surplus funds. It's not just merchant navy funds. It could be $30 million a year, because we always overestimate, I guess, against what we think may come in the door in terms of new business.

So that's what it is.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: On that, I would have to say, Mr. Nicholson, I'm wondering if more wasn't used because of the fact that the records and the files weren't there. As you know, it was in Transport, and now you've moved them over to Veterans Affairs. So many of them didn't have their records, and therefore, in order to apply, I mean, they just didn't have that information, God bless them.

I know you're not in a position... I know that. I'm just concerned. When I look at the documentation that has been brought to us today, I get the feeling that perhaps some people in the Department of Veterans Affairs are not in favour of some form of compensation for these people.

As I say, when Norway did it in 1968, they were 23 years late getting it done, but they did it. Here we are in 1999, and we still have not given these men their dignity in terms of what they did for you and for me.

David, you and I wouldn't be sitting here if it wasn't for them, God bless them. I still feel very strongly that there should be some form—some form—of compensation to make them feel that they were appreciated for putting their lives on the line for us. Somehow we have to come up with some formula to make sure that they know that we respect them, we honour them, and we appreciate them. We have to decide that ourselves.

Mr. David Nicholson: Thank you.

I have just one comment on that. I think it's important that the records show that even though the records were destroyed, we'll still receive their applications. There are other ways to prove the service, and we do that.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Okay.

Mr. David Nicholson: That really is not the reason there wasn't a larger drawdown on the money.

The Chairman: I would just indicate to colleagues that the researcher has brought it to my attention that we'll have distributed tomorrow a written answer to the question asked by Mrs. Wayne. Mr. Nicholson has verbally answered it here, but we'll have written information tabled as well. That has come to my attention.

Thank you for that.

That completes the first round of questions. We'll start a second five-minute round now with Mr. Goldring.

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

Mr. Nicholson, as I look at the facts that have been put here in your brief, and at the comparisons that have been put on the merchant navy facts website that I believe is put out by the veterans affairs department, your department puts out a very nice comparison of all of the individual programs, comparing the merchant navy with the armed forces veterans, and who received what.

I'm having difficulty with all of the information here, trying to digest it all at one time. Would it not be fair to the merchant navy veterans themselves, too, to perhaps do an extension on this so that it would be comparable to what the British navy did, when they did it, or the Australian navy, so that everybody could have a factual comparison, with a rundown of the points?

Mr. David Nicholson: We could do that, but now my colleague tells me it would be very difficult.

I'll ask him to explain why it would be very difficult.

Mr. Richard Brunton: Because the benefits aren't the same. They don't have the same names. What we call pensions, for instance, the Americans call compensation. What we might call war veterans allowance might be called something else in Australia.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Can we get something close to the issue?

Mr. David Nicholson: It might be a very large task, but it could be done.

Mr. Richard Brunton: Yes.

• 1750

Mr. Peter Goldring: In fairness to the veterans and to everyone in the group here, I think it would give a much easier method to follow along through a lot of the specific programs and plans, to be able to picture what has happened.

You did a very nice job on the one that's on your website. It's just a matter of extending it through.

As well, we have been given information that England has recognized merchant navy veterans since 1939. It would be of useful purpose for us to see what points they did recognize at that time so that we can correctly correlate them to what this website is relating to.

Secondly, I believe it's material to know what the other merchant navies of the world have done, but I believe the issue here is to bring our merchant navy seamen up to a point of full equality with the armed force veterans of the other three services. I know you may not comment on whether you believe there have been inequalities or not, but perhaps you could comment—maybe you have to comment—on whether the current legislation fully brings the merchant navy seamen up to this point of equality, given the number of years they did not have these benefits.

Mr. David Nicholson: Let me be careful in how I respond here. Yes, I can say that the legislation enacted in 1992, Bill C-84, and Bill C-61 just recently, through Parliament, provide merchant navy veterans with equal status under our legislation. That's the state of the world today.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Equal status as of the date of the legislation, with no retroactivity for possible grievances felt.

Mr. David Nicholson: That's correct, yes. As I said in my opening statement, there is no retroactivity in the Canadian legislation or in any of our Allied legislation.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Given that there's no retroactivity being presented, is there consideration for giving ex gratia to equalize any suggestions of imbalance up to the date that the legislation makes things correct?

The Chairman: Mr. Goldring, that's really a political question. That's for the government to decide, not the staff.

The answer to your question is obvious to this point: No government has seen fit to make ex gratia payments.

You have time for just one more.

Mr. Peter Goldring: All right.

Is it possible to have some type of timeframe on when this calculation of the different comparables could be brought forward for our information, too? Is it possible to have it in relatively quick order? Could we possibly have some idea on this?

Mr. David Nicholson: I won't even ballpark a time on it. We will be as fast as we can with it. I would like, though, to consult with the people who have to put it together and with my webmaster, who is in charge of the web.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Goldring.

I would just remind colleagues—I'm sure Mr. Nicholson and his staff know this as well—that the committee hopes to table its report before the summer recess, which, if you go by the rumour mill around this place, could be somewhere around June 9, 10, or 11. But that's simply rumour.

I think we would want to make our final decision, whatever that may be, on the issue of an ex gratia payment, which really is what all the discussion has come down to, in the final analysis, and table that report. If it's not tabled on June 8 or 9 or thereabouts, then we would be looking at the possibility that we would have risen for the summer.

So that's the timeline, just to give Mr. Nicholson and his staff the full implication of your request. If they can meet that, fine. I don't know whether they can, and probably they don't either.

• 1755

We want to give all relevant information to staff the first week of June for them to come back to us with a draft report, so we're giving you a pretty tight timeline.

Your request is made, and it's been noted. Maybe we could ask Mr. Nicholson to get back to us, either through the clerk or through the parliamentary secretary, in the next day or two, when he's had a chance to confer on this timeline and on whether or not it's achievable.

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

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mrs. Wayne.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Mr. Chairman, on the motion I had on the floor, which I tabled in order for all of this to take place, will we be coming back sometime soon to discuss that motion?

The Chairman: Absolutely. As I indicated earlier, Mr. Nicholson and his staff represent the final witnesses before the committee. Everyone who wanted to appear has had an opportunity to appear. Where we go from here is to review the testimony, which, in a sense, is what we're doing now with Mr. Nicholson. Then we probably will want to meet with staff as a committee, at least briefly. I think that's tentatively scheduled for next Thursday, at which time we would ask them to come back with a report.

I would expect that at the meeting we receive that report, we'll deal with your motion one way or another.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: All right. Thank you.

The Chairman: That's subject to change, but that's how I see it. We hope to do all that before June 8 or 9, so we're running out of time. Fortunately, all the witnesses we wanted to have appear have done so.

Let me go now to the government side.

Mr. Bertrand.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: I don't know if anybody can answer this, but I'll throw the question out anyway.

How would the salary of a merchant mariner compare with somebody from the navy, for instance? Would they be equal? Would it be less? What would be the financial amount he would receive?

Mr. Richard Brunton: That's a very complicated question. They were two completely different services with two completely different calculations of pay.

On the navy side, there was pay based on rank. So whatever rank you were, you got more.

In addition, there was the dependants allowance. If you were married and/or had dependants, then you got an addition to that, usually paid directly to those dependants. It was part of your pay.

For service in a combat zone or for various other types of service, there were additional allowances provided. So we had that scheme.

On the other hand, in the merchant navy we had pay that was negotiated between the shipping companies and the unions—or between the shipping master and the individual seaman, if that was the situation—whereby there was an industrial practice or custom that a certain function on ship would be paid so much. The first mate would get x dollars, an able seaman, y dollars, or so much per week or per month. It was a certain rate of pay.

No additional allowance was provided for whether the person was married or not. You did your job and that was the rate of pay for that job, whether you were married or not.

Early in the war, and increasingly throughout the war, the shipping companies got government permission to add to the pay the war-risk bonus.

As I think an earlier witness described to you today, the rate of pay for an able-bodied seaman went from something like $37 a month near the beginning of the war, I think they said, to $134, including the war-risk bonus, at the end of the war. So we have that picture.

Trying to make the comparison depends on who you choose to compare. Are you going to compare, for instance, a married able seaman with a married naval rating? Throughout the war, the married naval guy would have gotten more than the merchant navy guy, but if you choose a single person, then I think you will find that the merchant navy seaman got paid less during most of the war but more during the latter part of the war.

• 1800

Part of the difficulty here is that much of the mythology about pay is derived from the American practices. The Americans paid enormous bonuses to their merchant navy, quite unlike those that Britain and Canada and Australia paid, yet the word got around through the media and through common talk that all the merchant navies of the world were paid more at all times, that they were on easy street and got paid a lot.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

As a general rule, I think you'd have to say that their rates of pay were roughly comparable. I think that's a good term—“roughly comparable”. You'd have to look at the rank and who was married and who wasn't.

I'm sorry to make it such a long answer, but you can see the complicated situation we have.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: I understand.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bertrand.

Mr. Earle, do you have any other questions?

Mr. Gordon Earle: Yes.

It's mentioned that legislation passed by Parliament in 1992 extended full veterans status to merchant navy veterans and provided them with equal access to all the currently available veterans benefits. So this would include disability pension as well.

Mr. David Nicholson: Yes.

Mr. Gordon Earle: What is the current processing time for, say, applications coming in for disability pensions?

Mr. David Nicholson: That's an interesting question. As you probably remember, we reformed the pension process about three years ago now. At that time it was taking upwards of three years to get a decision for a disability pension. That included the appeal levels as well.

We had an objective of reducing those turnaround times by 50%. A first application can now go through the department in something a bit more than three months.

Mr. Gordon Earle: This would be applicable to all veterans?

Mr. David Nicholson: Oh, yes. First-come, first-served is the rule for the veterans applications.

Mr. Gordon Earle: So no special efforts are being taken for applications from merchant mariners. It's just first-come, first-served.

Mr. David Nicholson: Yes, first-come, first-served.

I hate to raise the word retroactive, but of course if a pension is approved, it's payable as of the date of application. So no matter how long it may have taken to get the thing through, it's paid from the date of application.

Previously there was a three-year limit on that when we had these long turnaround times. That's irrelevant now anyway. If you come in and place an application with us and we do an adjudication and it takes the three months or four months, then it's retroactive to the date of application.

Mr. Gordon Earle: The date of application, not the date of disability?

Mr. David Nicholson: No, the date of application.

Mr. Gordon Earle: I see.

In a sense, then, if we were comparing a merchant mariner with someone who was in the regular service who had applied a number of years back and got their pension from the date, perhaps, that they were disabled, and then they receive that pension and are currently receiving it, the merchant mariner, who just becomes eligible as of 1992, and who applies, in essence would only be eligible since the date of application.

I suppose there could be some call to say that perhaps there's an unfair situation there, because the person was not previously eligible to apply. Is that a fair assessment?

Mr. David Nicholson: Well, no. Keep in mind that a merchant navy veteran, depending on where he sustained his disability, is eligible from September 1939.

Mr. Gordon Earle: I see.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Earle.

To the government side, any questions? None?

Mrs. Wayne, then.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I have in my hand something from the Department of Transport, dated 1994. It says:

This is to certify that the name below is authorized to wear the following awards for services performed in the merchant navy during the war of 1939-45.

• 1805

It's called the CVSM and clasp. In order for the merchant navy men to wear their medals, they have to have this in case they are questioned by either an officer of her Majesty's service or a police officer.

Do they still have to do that now, even though the other army, navy, and air force men don't have to carry one of these?

Mr. David Nicholson: You're referring of course to the Canadian Volunteer Service Medal and clasp. I'm quite taken aback. I wasn't aware that they had to have a card attesting to the fact that they were permitted to wear that medal, because if their service warranted the medal, they'd receive it.

So I'm quite surprised by that, and I find it a bit offensive.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes.

What I would like to do is ask, now that Mr. Nicholson and the staff are aware of this, that they correct this. Can we?

Mr. David Nicholson: Wait now; I'm not in charge of the honours and awards system in Canada.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: All right, dear, but who would I get in touch with?

Mr. David Nicholson: We'll look after that for you, if you wish.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Will you?

Mr. David Nicholson: Yes.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I would like you to look after that.

If we're going to say they're equal, I don't think there's anybody sitting around this table, Mr. Chairman, who would feel that a merchant navy man should have to show or carry this in order to put on their clasp and their medal.

Thank you.

Mr. David Nicholson: Go ahead, Richard.

Mr. Richard Brunton: There's nothing in the regulation governing the CVSM that requires the carrying of that card by anyone. I note that you said that card came from the Department of Transport.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: At the top of this it says the Department of Transport. The date is on it, the number is on it, the gentleman had to sign it, and it is also signed by “Chief Marine, Crews and Training”. His signature is on it.

They have been told that in order for them to wear their CVSM and clasp, they must have this in their pocket at all times.

Mr. Richard Brunton: That was issued before the transfer of that function to our department.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: But they have never, ever changed it. I think it's an oversight. It has never been corrected.

Mr. Richard Brunton: We'll check that.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Thank you.

Mr. David Nicholson: Thank you for that.

The Chairman: Perhaps the relevant staff can get back to you on that, Mrs. Wayne. So thank you.

Last chance for questions.

Seeing none, Mr. Nicholson and your staff, I want to thank you very much for being here today, for the important documentation you've submitted, and for helping us with this issue. We appreciate it.

Mr. David Nicholson: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: The committee will reconvene on Tuesday with regard to procurement, from 9 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. I want to remind you that at 10.30 a.m., we're going to discuss how we proceed with the rest of this issue. So we'll have all the relevant information and Mrs. Wayne's motion and so on in front of us.

The meeting is adjourned.