NDVA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA DÉFENSE NATIONALE ET DES ANCIENS COMBATTANTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 18, 1999

• 0900

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.)): I'd like to call to order the meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs and welcome everyone. We're here primarily to discuss with Minister Baker where we go from here on the issue of the merchant marine.

I'd like to make a brief comment before we welcome the minister's comments. I've had a couple of media people ask me questions, which made it obvious to me that there's been a slight misperception or a forgetting of what has happened at this committee vis-à-vis the merchant marine. So I'd like to give you a brief overview.

Many months ago we had a motion from Mrs. Wayne to offer compensation to the merchant marine in the amount of I believe it was $20,000 at that time. By unanimous agreement of the committee, that motion was tabled for extensive hearings with a wide variety of individuals and groups with an interest in the merchant marine. We heard a tremendous amount of testimony from quite a few people over a great many hours. We had a wide range of compensation suggested: from $5,000 by the Legion up to as high as $200,000, which one individual merchant mariner suggested. So this committee held very extensive hearings on this issue. Then the committee finally made its decision in June.

There's a misperception that the committee did not deal with the compensation issue. Of course that's totally and completely false. The committee most definitely dealt with the compensation issue when it dealt with Mrs. Wayne's motion. Mrs. Wayne's motion was defeated. It was a fairly close vote, but it was defeated.

The committee then went on to put together its official committee report recommending certain other measures it felt could be useful in telling the merchant mariners' story more completely and fairly and offering a fuller recognition of their contributions during the Second World War to this country and to the cause of peace. However, the committee report was silent on the issue of compensation, that issue having already been dealt with by the committee.

The minority opinions that were appended to the report did speak to the issue of compensation, as was their prerogative to do.

So with that overview and refreshing of everyone's minds, particularly of some of the media, who I think have forgotten that course of events and have somehow forgotten that the committee most definitely dealt with the issue of compensation, I'd like to welcome you, Mr. Minister, for the first time to the SCONDVA committee in your new capacity. We welcome your comments today, and we're happy to explore with you how we might now deal with this issue of compensation. Welcome, sir.

The Honourable George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affiars and Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency)): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I want to introduce the deputy minister of the department, Mr. Larry Murray, and Mr. Brian Ferguson, who's the ADM for veterans services.

First of all, I want to congratulate the committee for their very active role in this issue before us today and also to thank the Department of Veterans Affairs for their commitment and their continued assistance in this matter, which is fairly complicated in nature.

Instead of reading this full statement, Mr. Chair, I would suggest everybody be given a copy. Has everybody received a copy of this statement?

The Chairman: I'm told by the clerk that unfortunately we don't have copies, Mr. Minister.

• 0905

Mr. George Baker: I'll summarize it very briefly then.

As I mentioned in my letter, since becoming minister in August I've been seized with the issue of responding to your committee's report, particularly the issue of appropriately recognizing the contribution of the merchant navy. Since August I have met with the leadership of most of the national veterans organizations, as well as representatives of several of the merchant navy organizations.

In these meetings it has become abundantly clear to me that all of the organizations would be strongly opposed to any government response that did not deal with the issue of compensation for merchant navy veterans. That is why I welcomed the unanimous motion, as you said, Mr. Chairman, made by this committee to ask me to deal with this on an urgent basis.

It was also clear from your hearings, from reading the testimony, that there is no consensus on what would constitute a fair and equitable solution. Mr. Chairman, in my letter to you, following your letter to me regarding your unanimous resolution, I said that the committee could be of service to us in this regard if the committee wished to try to develop a consensus on this matter.

In striving for a consensus a number of factors should be examined closely. One of these is population figures. Mr. Chairman, the veterans organizations asked me a simple question: Why are our numbers so different from the departmental numbers? The difference is staggering.

Since receiving your unanimous letter and after meeting with the veterans organizations, we have been searching through archives mainly, because in the case of the Maritimes, the Department of Transport destroyed all the records. Incredible—they destroyed all the records after the war. Newfoundland wasn't a part of Canada in 1946. They kept no records.

What we have are people today down in the basement of the archives searching through the root cellar of Newfoundland history, searching for these numbers to verify to get some idea of the numbers of people who are involved. And we're doing the same thing in other areas of Canada.

When these people, the statistician and so on assigned to it, come up with some fairly accurate numbers, they're going to be meeting with, or I will be meeting with, the merchant navy veteran association representatives to present our findings.

Perhaps the thorniest issue is what would be a fair and equitable package. I think we can arrive at the numbers with all of this work that is presently being done, but then we arrive at what is a fair and equitable package. As you know, Mr. Chairman, the merchant navy groups themselves do not agree on what the package should be concerning this matter.

I think, Mr. Chairman, in this particular case we've had various representations. One, as you know, is from the Royal Canadian Legion. They testified before your committee that across-the-board payments of $20,000 would be close to the package for Hong Kong veterans who were compensated for their slave labour. I use that as just one example of the necessary process we have to go through. We have to consider all veterans organizations and their opinions in arriving at a conclusion in this matter.

We had looked at tying a package to the amount of time a merchant navy veteran served. This also coincides with how post-war benefits were calculated for military veterans in a couple of instances. I would also appreciate, if you so wish, your recommendations with respect to whether or not we should include the survivors of merchant navy veterans in any package, and of course I think you have unanimously said that they should be covered in the package.

• 0910

There are also other groups who feel that their contributions to Canada's war effort have not been adequately recognized. I'm speaking here of the civilian groups, such as ferry command and Red Cross workers, who served in close support of Canada's Armed Forces. Some long-term prisoners of war also feel they have been neglected by our system, which does not distinguish between someone who was imprisoned for two and a half years and someone, like some merchant navy people—including the late Mr. Olmstead, who worked so tirelessly for this cause—who were held for much longer.

So in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the challenges, as I see it, are to find some middle ground on the numbers—and we're making some progress on that now—and, secondly, what would constitute a fair, equitable, and acceptable package for merchant mariners. Your committee, if they so wish, could become a part of this process by having open public hearings.

The veterans organizations have asked me, in my meetings with them, to do those two things. First, they want us to verify the numbers as closely as we can, and to prove it, to show the evidence of the numbers. Secondly, there are two groups who want me to figure out what was the compensation given in what they term “the big three”: the university amount—not the vocational amount or the trade school amount, but the university amount, the lands amount. That should be averaged out with the amount of money that people took as a compensation for the period of time they served.

I am in the process of doing that, Mr. Chairman, of examining this. I tell you quite honestly that it is a very complex area. It is very complex. It is not simple to try to figure out, for example, what the lands option is worth, or was worth, or the university option.

I welcome questions. And if I can't answer the question, the deputy or the assistant deputy I'm sure can. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister, for those opening comments.

I have one or two quick thoughts and we'll go to questions from members.

It became clear to us, to our committee—let's be candid—that you as a new minister, as is your purview and responsibility, were reviewing the files you inherited on the merchant mariner file. And it became clear to us, as the SCONDVA committee, that you were seriously entertaining compensation. Hence, we sent you the unanimous all-party letter that, given the fact you were considering compensation, we felt it would be very wise for you to consider not only the official report, which was silent on compensation, that matter already having been dealt via Mrs. Wayne's motion, but that you also take a look at the minority reports appended to the official report, which did specifically speak to compensation. So that was the genesis of the letter, if you will.

Mr. Minister, I'm sure you've had a chance to look at the testimony. Almost every witness who came before us spoke to the compensation issue, and my recollection is the Legion recommended a more or less token $5,000, as I indicated, all the way up to one individual, who was seeking $200,000, and various numbers in between. The consensus was hovering around a $20,000 number, I would say. So there is quite a bit of testimony on the record about the issue of compensation. And with that kind of reflection, I'll go to members. I'm not sure how long you have, Mr. Minister, but—

Mr. George Baker: As long as you want.

The Chairman: That's great.

We'll go in the normal party order, that's fine. Then we'll start with Mr. Goldring, for seven minutes.

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

• 0915

Mr. Minister, when we're discussing this compensation, I want to make it clear, in regard to the one member who did appear at the committee and mentioned a higher number in the area of $200,000, that what he was relating to was that over the period of the years, intergenerationally, the advantage of an education is hard to calculate generation after generation. Obviously it gives a very big advantage to somebody. It could conceivably be a number of $200,000. So whereas that was the high end of the figure, it wasn't totally unrealistic.

I come from a business background; I didn't have a grant to start a business, or to buy a farm. Veterans did. What is the advantage of starting a business? Would there be another McCain Foods because they had a grant after the war to start a business? McCain is an $8-billion-a-year industry empire. Would that have been possible to do if they had had the advantage of a business grant? Maybe. So is it unrealistic for that one person, Bill Riddell, to say $200,000? I don't think so, because it's impossible to calculate over the years what it is.

We did have a consensus. The consensus in our minority report—a consensus of the opposition parties—was a number of $20,000. If we fixate trying to compare that number to the Hong Kong number, which was approximately $23,500.... It's similar, possibly, but so what?

In other words, why are we being fixated by a number that may be similar to another number? We're studying the merchant navy. What's the relevance? It's an entirely different matter from the Hong Kong issue.

I think the $20,000 has been agreed upon not because it's a number that is cast in stone as a number that equates to this lack of inequality over all of these years, but because it's a number that's symbolic—a token number these veterans have decided would be a sign from the government to recognize all these years of inequality. It doesn't relate to what they have been disadvantaged by. It relates to symbolism, not to the numbers.

So I want to repeat that there have been discussions about the one number of $200,000 being the high end. Was it high, or was that reality? I'd like to know what your comments are with that type of thinking.

Mr. George Baker: First of all, no, you couldn't say that. You have to be careful, though. I've been seized with this, as I said, since becoming the minister three months ago, and it's a very complex area.

Let me first of all correct a couple of things you said. There were no grants. They were not business grants; they were loans. Okay? A loan is a loan, and a grant is a grant. When you look at the amounts of money somebody received, that has to come into play—a loan at what interest rate? What interest rate was charged is important as well. I know the interest rates on most of these loan arrangements to war veterans after the war stood at less than 1%, but they were loans. They weren't grants. That's number one.

Number two, the number of people who actually took up the challenge on the university education—not the vocational education, not the trade school education, because for the merchant navy there was an arrangement there in 1946 to upgrade certain skills, if they wished, through vocational training.... However, when you look at the university training, that's a separate issue. It's interesting that only 5%—one in twenty people—actually took up that particular option. It's interesting also to note that some of the war veterans who didn't were very angry that they didn't come back to Canada within that 12-month period. It was offered during that set period of time that they had to take it up. When they came back they said they weren't able to take it up in that period of time.

• 0920

Why does that come into play? That comes into play because.... I'll give you an example. There was a gratuity and a bonus given to practically everybody after the war, including the merchant navy, but you had to take that up before March 31, 1947. You had to put in your application and take it up. A lot of our merchant navy veterans never got back to Canada before March 31, 1947.

The point is this. If you turn around and say let's average out an amount of money equal to what somebody we suspect gained from being able to take advantage of the university option, which included not only going through university, but also your pre-matriculation, as it was called years ago—you matriculated—you have a situation where a great many war veterans are angry, because they couldn't take up the option in that period of a year.

You have merchant navy people who are angry that they could not take up the question of the bonus, the gratuity at the end of the war, because some of them didn't get back by March 31, 1947. Those people would be doubly discriminated against, because they would not have been back to take advantage of the education option.

So do you then turn around—and this is why it's so complicated, and you have to be careful here—and say okay, let's arrive at a figure for all of the merchant navy veterans, regardless of whether they were in Canada in that period of a year, and then say to all the other war veterans, “Too bad, even though you weren't here for that year, you're not going to get it”, while the merchant navy, who also were not here, can now get an average of that amount?

You see, I'm just using it as an example. It is so complex and it is so ridden with possible legal challenges. And after you do it, you have to make sure that you're not open to a whole rash of other groups who are going to ask for the same treatment.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I have a small point of clarity.

The Chairman: Peter.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Yes, it was loans for businesses. But coming from a small-business background, I can say a loan is like a grant. Small businesses just have tough times getting loans, period. I know that full well. Maybe the education wasn't accessed, but it was the opportunity to have education—the opportunity—that was the main point.

The Chairman: Colleagues, use your time how you will, but I'll recall for everybody that the minister's here at our invitation to discuss with us his idea that we might want to reopen hearings to deal specifically with compensation to try to develop a consensus. Use your time how you will, but that's really the purpose of the meeting.

[Translation]

Mr. Mercier, you have seven minutes.

Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Minister, I am new to this matter, but I understand the following. Firstly—and this is positive—we all agree on one principle: these mariners must be compensated. That is a positive basis on which we can build.

The difficulties that we see are as follows. It is impossible, 50 years after the fact, to determine how long these mariners have served or how many crossings they have made. It may even be impossible to know how many survivors there are. Another difficulty is that providing compensation creates a precedent that other groups with more or less the same merits could try to claim.

Now, I think we should all agree that we cannot ask the mariners to pay for the fact that we have been waiting 50 years before compensating them.

In our dissenting report, we proposed a minimum compensation of $20,000. I have made a calculation and, given a somewhat arbitrary interest rate of 6% during the last 50 years, the amount of $20,000 in today's money would be the equivalent of some $840 in 1945 or 1946. So it is a minimum on which we should all agree, and we therefore maintain our position regarding a minimum compensation of $20,000.

• 0925

We are of the opinion that this compensation should be paid without having to do some research that could take many years in order to find out whether other groups could eventually argue that they have the same amount of service and could therefore ask for the same benefits.

The Hon. George Baker: I have consulted four groups made up of members from Quebec on this issue. They all support the direction we are taking.

[English]

Yes, you are right that the groups from Quebec are all in agreement that there must be compensation. Each one of the groups from Quebec—people from Quebec who came to my office and sat in my office—has asked me to go back, get the numbers correct, and present them with a rationale for payment of the amount of money involved. They have asked for them to then have time to consider that and to respond back to me on the rationale that was used.

But what they have also asked me to do is, instead of taking one payment.... And they agree with our direction here. They agree that there has to be some logic, there has to be some rationale behind doing something.

[Technical Difficulty—Editor]

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Mercier: I am sorry, but the sound of this interpretation is much to weak.

The Hon. George Baker: We have a problem with—

An hon. member: The Y2K bug.

Mr. Paul Mercier: It's better now.

[English]

Mr. George Baker: Each group with representation of merchant navy veterans from Quebec who came into my office—there were several of them—asked me to come back to them with an amount of money equal to the average amount that veterans received at the end of the war—the average amount. If they took two options and there were four on the table, as there were.... They took the clothing allowance anyway, but then they had an option of three things: the land, the education, or the amount of money on separation, how long you spent in the merchant navy.

My problem is now I'm working to try to come up with an average figure of what people actually received. What benefit did war veterans receive at the end of the war? Where is the dollar figure? That's what I'm trying to come up with so that they can then respond to that themselves. They have asked me to do that, and that's the way I'm behaving with this.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Mercier: Minister, I understand these difficulties, but would you agree as a principle that this average could not be less than this amount of $20,000 which is the equivalent of $840 in 1945 dollars, that this amount could be given as a first instalment, that you could tell the veterans you have consulted that you will do the research they have been asking for and, with an average that will not be less than $20,000, that you cannot ask the mariners to wait anymore and that you will give them a first amount of $20,000?

• 0930

[English]

Mr. George Baker: This could be done if this were a provincial jurisdiction. In other words, if this were the provincial government and if I were a minister in the provincial government, yes, I could do that, because that's the way decisions can be taken. There is enough latitude for that to take place.

However, under our rules in Ottawa, you have to come up with a rationale for payment, and it has to be a complete submission; it can't be half a submission. Then it has to go through a committee process of cabinet. It has to go through Treasury Board. It has to go through a whole process. You couldn't give them half a loaf and say “I believe this is going to be half the amount of money”, because that's just not the way things work. If I tried that, it would just be delayed indefinitely. I would never be able to get my colleagues to agree with something like that.

As I say, perhaps the system should be simpler. I would certainly agree with you. But unfortunately it's a very complicated system. Even after we come to a conclusion—and eventually we will come to a conclusion—we have to go through a process to get the funds approved. I can't make a decision such as that on my own. That would have to be a decision of Treasury Board, of cabinet, and of cabinet committee. We have to go through three different hoops.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Mercier: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Mercier.

[English]

Now Mrs. Longfield, please, for seven minutes.

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): I won't take all of my seven minutes, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for coming. You articulated a number of my concerns. I don't have a problem with compensation; it's what compensation. What bothers me is the universality of the compensation. You've pointed out quite rightly that one in twenty were able to avail themselves of the university opportunity, and I don't know how many with the land grants, and we know there was difficulty with the severance.

I have to go back and face all of my veterans and say “Well, in this case perhaps eight of you were able to get some form of compensation if you were regular veterans, but over here 100% of you will receive compensation as a result of $20,000 across the board.” This leads us to the problem of how to arrive at an amount. And I'm not certain that bringing back witnesses will help us with that quandary.

What we need are some facts and figures. Getting the number of people eligible is the least of our difficulties. We can arrive at a number. But then, I want to treat them fairly, but I don't want to treat them disproportionately to what we did with our regular veterans. Within your ministry, do you have any facts and figures that could point us in the right direction?

I believe bringing in other witnesses is not going to help, because it's easy. They'll just get together and say, “Well, $20,000 is what we've arrived at and that's what we're going for.”

Mr. George Baker: You're very right on one of the things you just said a moment ago: you have to be very careful that you treat everybody the same.

Some of those benefits I'm presently examining, which war veterans were offered after they were discharged from the war, had conditions on them. For example, if you wanted to get the largest amount, which was the land thing—a farm or whatever—you had to have served overseas or you must have been in the western hemisphere in service for 12 months. So again, do you then turn around and limit the merchant navy when you come up with a figure for that? Do you limit it to people who either served overseas or served continuously for 12 months in the western hemisphere aboard a ship? Then you're leaving out some merchant navy people.

• 0935

But if you do it across the board, as you say, what do you then say to the people who missed one of the options because they didn't spend time overseas and they didn't spend their twelve months in the western hemisphere, or they weren't disabled? Don't forget, all persons who were disabled qualified for these things we're talking about today. If you were disabled, if you were injured, and so on, you qualified, regardless of who you were.

So there are these questions in there. You're absolutely right. That's why it becomes very complicated in trying to arrive at a just solution. We thought we had a formula that would work, because it would have covered everybody, even somebody who was out for a week. That's the way it was covered with that option, the cash amount.

And I can understand. The veterans organizations are absolutely correct. We should be looking at all of these others—the big three, as they call them—to find out what the benefits were there. But then do you apply the same criteria to the merchant navy as you applied to the war veterans? That's another complication.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: But if you do apply the same criteria, not every war veteran got an amount.

Mr. George Baker: Exactly, and then they will come back and say “Well now, right is right and wrong is no man's right, so you must give us some compensation.”

Mrs. Judi Longfield: That's what I mean.

Mr. George Baker: You're absolutely right. So we have to be prepared for that, yes.

The Chairman: Thanks, Mrs. Longfield.

Mr. Proud, you have three minutes of that time left if you want it.

Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Minister, Deputy.

I've been around this file since 1991-92. We say the government should pay these people compensation, and we've come a long way in what's happened in the last seven or eight years. It wasn't this government and it wasn't Mr. Mulroney's government that denied these people their benefits. It was governments prior to that that did this.

I feel, and I always have felt—we talked about this—that back in 1992, had we gone for the kind of thing we're looking at now, that bill would never have gone through. We were told that. That was a fact of life. They never went after it. The only thing that was mentioned in retroactivity at that time was $100 clothing allowance, which never went anywhere. At that time, they'd become merchant navy veterans, which they didn't like, and I don't blame them. They wanted to become veterans, the same as everybody else.

The governments of the 1940s, the 1950s, the 1960s, and the 1970s, which didn't recognize these people, are the ones that should be blamed for all of this. Of course it's too late now to cast that.

I was told by people in charge, by people who knew this file inside out and backwards, that no other country has ever given this type of payment. The last bill that went through gave them veterans status and all of the compensation that's available to all veterans, with the exception of what they're looking for now. I remember bringing this up back in 1992, and they said “No, this file is closed, the VLA file is closed, all these other files are closed, and nothing is going to happen.” No other country ever gave it.

These people were wrongly done by over the years. It's terrible what happened to these people in the last fifty years. But I'm having trouble in my own mind now in saying we have to give them this. If we give it to them—which I will not oppose—then we have to give it on the same basis on which it was given to the veterans, just what you were talking about a few minutes ago. You can't discriminate one against the other, because if you do that then you're going to have another group coming back to you.

And there are a lot of them out there. There are a lot of veterans out there today who never got anything from the Department of Veterans Affairs—never asked for anything and never got anything. If they came in today to apply for a pension and were qualified for a pension, they wouldn't qualify for VLA, they wouldn't qualify for education, and they wouldn't qualify for repatriation pay either.

So it's quite an undertaking we're looking at again, after in the last year we've said no to this. That's just my own opinion, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Proud. Again, we're entertaining whether or not we should open up hearings. I'd just reflect that that's really why we're here.

I'll go now to Mr. Earle for his seven minutes.

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

First I'd like to thank the minister for appearing here today and for his sincere effort in wanting to deal in a positive way with this issue.

• 0940

From the minister's statement, three things have to be dealt with. One is his concern about the numbers; two is that there be a fair and equitable and acceptable package; and third is the minister asked us, as a committee, to have open public hearings.

I'll deal with the last point first. I don't think, myself, that would be advisable or necessary, because the committee did in fact have open and public hearings on this whole issue of the merchant marine. The issue we dealt with was whether or not they should be compensated, as well as other issues. So I just think we'd be repeating and getting into the same story over and over and we'd be no further ahead.

With respect to numbers, I can understand why the government wants to have a fairly good indication of numbers, but I think perhaps that is making the issue unnecessarily complex. First of all, the associations themselves have numbers they have worked out, which they are satisfied with at this point. The department may have other numbers, which they may feel have more people involved.

Coming to the second point, if a fair and equitable package is arrived at, then that should hold true whether there's one merchant mariner or 10,000 merchant mariners. If it's fair, it's fair.

I think the concern for numbers is because the government has a certain budget item in mind and they have to make sure they don't go over that. But if there's going to be compensation and if a fair and equitable package is worked out, and if you find out further down the road there are a few more or a few less, that doesn't disentitle those few more or few less to that compensation package.

So I don't think we should confuse the issue of numbers, because while we're trying to work out and dig through all the archives and work out the numbers, the numbers are slowly dying off. We can resolve this problem in a year or so by just doing nothing or researching and researching until the merchant mariners are dead and then we don't have a problem. So I think we should not let that become a red herring in the picture.

Secondly, regarding a rationale for the payment and a logic for the payment, the rationale for the payment and the logic for the payment is quite simply that the merchant mariners were treated unfairly following the war. That's what this committee established through the many witnesses that came out, and it was felt they were treated differently.

Now, you can start trying to compare the regular service people and what they did or did not get with what the merchant mariners did or did not get, but the point is that the regular service people had the option to apply to get these things. Whether they made the deadline dates is another issue. That would apply right across the board. But the merchant mariners did not have the option for that university grant or for the land grant. It wasn't offered to them. Whether or not they applied becomes irrelevant and secondary.

The point is, it's been determined that these people were treated differently. Really, the rationale for the compensation is not to try to enable these people to recoup what was lost, because they may never recoup what was lost and we may never work out a formula to determine what was lost. The payment is symbolic of the mistreatment, and it could be similar to many payments the government has made in a lot of situations on an ex gratia basis; it's made to recognize the principle of wrongdoing, and that's over and done with, and that's the amount.

How do you arrive at that amount? Sure, there are going to be varying opinions across the board, and that's what this committee looked at. There were many opinions presented to this committee. The end result was that the minority recommended an amount that seemed to be in keeping with the overall opinion of most of the merchant navy groups.

Now, when you say we have to be concerned about all veterans organizations, I think that's a wrong approach too. I think we have to give them respect, but they had their opportunity to appear before this committee—the legions and so forth. The veterans groups we have to be concerned about are the merchant navy veterans groups. I understand there are five of them—four of them are part of a coalition. I understand they have agreed they would meet with you together, all five of them, and they would try to work out what they would feel to be an acceptable amount.

We've recommended on the minority side $20,000 as a figure that we thought was reasonable. I still hold to that from the point of view of my party. We feel that's reasonable. But it's not because we've calculated how much they've lost, because you can never calculate what was lost. These men made a sacrifice, and you can never put that in dollars and cents. What it represents is a significant and symbolic payment to compensate for the lost opportunity.

So I would think if we approach it from that perspective, you have your rationale, you have your logic, you have a rough amount, you can deal with the merchant navy groups on that amount, and if there's some kind of an agreement then move ahead on that basis. But you'll never get unanimity on this thing. You'll never get everybody to be in agreement on an amount. And I think if you're looking at the bottom line as to what it's going to cost the government, then you're never going to get agreement either.

• 0945

So let's forget about the number aspect, because while you're researching those numbers, as I say, the numbers are declining. Deal with the issue. Come up with a compensation package. Make the offer, and then if you find out a few more people out there in the same merchant mariner group have been overlooked because of the records or whatever, then you pay them as well.

Dealing with the other concerns, about the ferry command and all these other groups, is adding another red herring to it, because this committee was not charged with the responsibility of looking at that issue. We dealt with the merchant mariner issue. That's the issue we reported on, and that's the issue that should be dealt with.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Earle.

Mr. George Baker: If I could comment on that, if everything were as clear as Mr. Earle suggested, we wouldn't be here.

Mr. Earle has suggested that I ignore Mr. Ferlatte's organization because they went with a system of up-the-scale. We're going to hear from Mrs. Wayne in a moment, who's going to suggest that we not ignore any of these organizations, and certainly not Mr. Ferlatte's organization and other organizations.

So it would be great just to take a figure. One organization did come up with a figure and said that's it, but it was only one organization. We now have to deal with some system and either come up with a figure or a variety of figures.

The Chairman: I can tell you, Mr. Ferlatte is a hard man to ignore, and all these merchant mariners. Not that we wanted to ignore them—on the contrary, we heard them out at great length. Everyone who asked to speak to the committee was given that opportunity.

Your time is up.

Mr. Gordon Earle: You used up some of my time.

The Chairman: No, I didn't, Mr. Earle. I didn't use any of your time, but I'm going to give you 30 seconds more.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Okay.

As a quick response, I did not suggest that you ignore Mr. Ferlatte. I don't even know which organization he represents. I suggested very strongly that the five merchant mariner groups—and I believe that would include Mr. Ferlatte's—would meet with you and work out an agreement together with you.

Mr. George Baker: It does not represent Mr. Ferlatte's group, though. It's completely separate.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Yes, but I said there are five groups, four of whom are in a coalition. Then I suggested that you should meet with all five of these groups. So that would include Mr. Ferlatte's group. But the point I'm trying to make is—

Mr. George Baker: That's what I would like to do.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Yes.

Mr. George Baker: Can you get them all together?

Mr. Gordon Earle: Well, I'll assist if that's—

The Chairman: Now it is Mrs. Wayne's turn, for seven minutes.

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

Mr. Minister, I hope when I'm through I won't see this on This Hour Has 22 Minutes.

First and foremost, I want to tell you I have had an awful lot of calls. I've had them from the province of Newfoundland, and this week they've been from Newfoundland to British Columbia. It has been steady in my office.

Like my colleague George Proud, I've been on this file since 1993, when Muriel and Mr. Olmstead first came to see me in my office.

I want to tell you something that you have to understand. If the merchant navy men who were aboard those ships were torpedoed.... I'm going to tell you very quickly about a gentleman who has been to see me and is very close to me and others up on the Hill. He was torpedoed on his first trip, and from the minute he was torpedoed and hit the water, he never got a pay cheque, because the minute they were wounded they no longer could go aboard the ship. If they were torpedoed in the water, they got nothing, not a God-forsaken cent.

They took him as a prisoner of war. The Germans accused him of espionage and told him they were going to shoot him the next day. Do you know how old he was? He was 14 years old.

They put him in that prisoner of war camp, and every morning they had to march. One of our men—and it wasn't a merchant navy man—spat in the face of one of the German soldiers. They thought it was this gentleman, this merchant mariner, so they took him and put him in a little room. The room was as long as this table and just twice as wide, with a urinal in the floor.

After four or five months of being there, standing up—he could only sit down, Larry—he begged them to take him out and shoot him. They didn't shoot him.

After six months or maybe a little longer, they took him back out and put him back in the prisoner of war camp. They wouldn't even let the Red Cross notify his parents that he was alive; they thought he was dead because they never heard from him.

He was there for over three years as a prisoner of war. That we don't treat them equally is not fair.

• 0950

Mr. Minister, I have to tell you that I am opposed to having hearings again. I feel very strongly that we have to put the groups in a room. They have to come out with a solid recommendation to you that every group agrees to. They do it, and we stay out of the bloody room. They go in the room, they negotiate this themselves, and they give you the package when they come back. They give it to us as well, and they say that this is it. As long as we're in the room, it looks like politics is being played around this table. That isn't it, because everybody here cares about these people.

Now, if you want to know—and Mr. Ferguson, I understand that you and Larry and everyone else are looking and are trying to get the numbers—I believe the minister has received a letter. That letter gives you the information that says the Canadian Merchant Navy Veterans Association has the permanent list of 2,300 members. It has their names, their addresses, their phone numbers and their ships, listed in numerical order. If some of them have been deceased since it was put together, that's there and so on. It's all there. There's a list of 1,700. It's their mailing list of current members of their association. But on this other list, the ships and everything are listed. We just need to get it from them. You can verify things very quickly. If there is more than that, then I guess that's something you'll have to find out through your research. But it's there, they have it, they've done their homework, and they're there. That we can verify. The documentation is done.

There are two things you have to do. One is to determine the amount we're going to give them. I don't think it should be us around this table any more. I think it's time we put the groups together. Somehow, we have to get Cliff Chadderton and that group and the rest of them to agree so that we're all united and they're all united, and then they come in together. For you to sell this to your cabinet, you can't go in with thirteen different recommendations, for God's sake. We all know that. You know that even if you've been a mayor, for cripes sake. I know that when I used to get the councillors all coming in with something, they had to come up with one recommendation.

We have to come up with one recommendation, but they have to come up with it first. If we get the bloody politics out of that room and let them fight it out and come back to us with that recommendation that should be presented to you, you then can meet with us and tell us what it is or however you wish it to be done. But I think that has to be done, and it has to be done immediately. Surely to God we're going to finalize this before Christmas. I mean, they've waited all these years.

What I'm telling you is God's honest truth, and I can present the man who was that prisoner of war to you today. But for you to hear from one group, Mr. Minister, and then another group, and another group and so on, everybody has a different opinion and a different recommendation. What we're saying to you today and in our letter, sir, is that we unanimously agreed that there has to be a compensation package. We all agreed that has to be. We have to somehow finalize this in terms of how it's going to be worked out.

Mr. Chairman, I guess that's about all I have to say. I don't know, I'll probably be back again, but anyway....

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Wayne.

Mr. Minister.

Mr. George Baker: Mr. Chairman, again, I have gone over the numbers very carefully with the various organizations and have compared them to three times that number, as estimated by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Each one of the organizations has asked us to go back to do a real search, one that's not based on an educated guess or any computer models, and to actually come up with the numbers, as Mrs. Wayne has suggested, with the 2,300 who are members of the organization she referred to—the membership list. But as Mr. Earle points out, there are other organizations that have their own numbers as well. I imagine we will find out after the statisticians report back in a very short period of time.

• 0955

I'm going to leave you with this. In what those organizations have asked me to do—to average out the benefit that was given to every other war veteran—the largest amount of money that has been listed is something like a benefit of $6,000 given to people who took advantage of the land portion.

In looking at that, there's a problem—and this is only another example I'll give you. I gave you the education example, the university example, which is very complicated. In the lands question, nobody got any money. They had to put down 10% of the value of the property when they finished the war. It was a loan, a mortgage over thirty years. It was at a mortgage interest rate that was pretty low. The government itself had gone out and bought the property or bought the farm or bought the home or whatever, and then took two-thirds of the cost and said all right, veteran, you pay back two-thirds of the cost with a mortgage over thirty years, and you will pay an interest rate, but you will first of all put down 10% of the cost, so it will cost you money to take advantage of the lands option. I just point that out in arriving at that figure, Mr. Chairman.

The point is that there's an interesting variation on Mrs. Wayne has said. The 76% of all war veterans who had the option took advantage of the payment of money. That is, the period of time they were in the forces was multiplied by a set rate. That didn't mean you had to be.... If you wanted to have that system transplanted with the merchant marines, nobody could criticize it.

Perhaps there's leeway after I've done what they've asked me to do, which is to average out all of the big three. They've asked me to do this, so I have to do this. It's not me. I'm not doing it. They asked me to do it, so that's what I'm in the process of doing.

I don't know, I'm only guessing out loud here. Perhaps the resolution at the end of the day could be to go back to that original figure and probably take the advice of Mrs. Wayne's good friend, who suggested to me one day that we were using the wrong standard as far as the cost of living increase is concerned. There are probably avenues open there, but I'll tell you that in these other options, in the land option, the education option and so on, this is wrought with difficulties that could create incredible problems down the road. But I must go back with those figures and come up with them in some way in order to report back to the veterans organizations.

The Chairman: If I might, colleagues, we've been around, first of all. If we're going to go around again, in fairness I have to go in order again.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I just have to reply to one question.

The Chairman: Okay, I'll give Mrs. Wayne a quick response, because she hadn't used her whole time.

Just before we do, Elsie, we've all had a chance to discuss this with the minister. I would suggest that if we have any more questions for him and if he can stay with us, that's fine. If not, I know he's certainly busy, so we would stay, consider the discussion, and advise him accordingly briefly.

Mrs. Wayne.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes, I just left one thing out. With regard to other groups at this point in time, in March of this year the government of the day and the rest of us all agreed that the merchant navy men would become the fourth arm of the armed forces. So we don't deal with other groups. They are the fourth arm of the armed forces: the army, navy, air force, and merchant navy. That was how we recognized them in March 1999, okay?

We don't deal with these other groups now. They're civilian groups. This is the fourth arm of the armed forces. They're the merchant navy. We did that in March 1999, when we put them under the War Veterans Allowance Act. That's where they are now, so they're different. We don't want to be talking about any other group at all. We're dealing with them. If we have to deal with the other groups, that's down the road, but this is where we are right now, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Minister, I don't know if you have a bit more time, but I do see some other colleagues with questions.

An hon. member: We have a vote, don't we?

An hon. member: No.

The Chairman: It's a vote, is it?

An hon. member: What vote is this?

The Chairman: We're just checking here, Mr. Minister.

We'll start the second round, at five minutes. Colleagues, I think we've all made our views known, so I'd suggest that you might want to focus on some questions now if you have any for the minister, perhaps on his suggestion that we may want.... A number of you have spoken about whether or not we would reopen hearings. At some point I'm going to ask you for a committee decision so that we can advise the minister.

Okay, Mr. Goldring.

• 1000

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

Mr. Minister, I'm pleased you are taking a serious look at this issue. It's been 55 years. I've only been on this file for a year and a half now, but I am very pleased we're seriously discussing it. I'm also very pleased we have reached a point in these discussions, and I believe there is consensus from all, that we will look at a compensation package. The problem here and the difficulty here seems to be in how.

I think after 55 years we must resolve the how; that is imperative. Perhaps it would be too complicated going back through the records to pull off some actuarial figures from the individual records and files. Maybe that will be an impossible way to try to come up with a resolution to this.

Perhaps the resolution to this is just in the simple per-person amount that was in the minority report. Perhaps at the end of the day that's the only way to resolve this. Yes, there will be questions from different parties on it, but I think it can be explained and it can be acknowledged that this is way to resolve a very difficult situation after 55 years. So I think maybe at the end of the day that will be the only solution and the answer on it.

Now, how to do this. I have a question here to you. Previously in some of the discussions at the hearings, there was an amount of $100 million that was allotted. I don't know how you describe it, but it was an allotted sum that was given for some form of a settlement in the past, and some $80 million was never used. If there is a method like that, that you could propose to cabinet making an allowance of some $100 million, and then it will be the responsibility of the various groups to determine what that is divisible by, or how to divide that, can that method not be used? Is not that a method that can be approached—in other words, to come up with a global amount?

Then it would be the responsibility of the various groups to meet and to say how many members are there, how many spouses are there still surviving, and what would be a fair and equitable way to divide that? Maybe it won't be exactly $20,000, maybe it will be some other odd amount of money, but to come up with a fixed amount to start the process of how to divide it—is that something that can be done?

Mr. George Baker: Mr. Chairman, it's an interesting suggestion. I suppose anything is possible.

We of course do have a serious problem. You remember when the government announced that under no circumstances could we entertain a retroactive lump sum payment, an overall broad payment, simply because it would open the door to all kinds of claims made against the government if you made it a retroactive payment. So what we did two and a half months ago, in examining it, was to find a way of doing it without its being a global figure that involved something that was lost along the way. In other words, we had to identify something. In order to sell this, we had to identify a specific thing.

We came to the conclusion that the only thing we could identify was a specific thing they did not receive that everybody else received, and of course we identified those payments at the end, as some members already had done, identified that as the method of doing it, so it doesn't become a lump sum payment in recognition of.... Of what? That they were not recognized over a period of time.

So when you zero in on the rationale, then you have to be definitive and you have to be exact, simply because there's a whole mass of people already there who say “Look, if you open this up, I was not able to take advantage of this, and here's the reason why”, and you are doing this for somebody else.... This lump sum payment and divvying it up is recognition of what? Recognition that they didn't receive payments at the end of the war.

• 1005

So that's why I think it would be much simpler to sell if we could come up with a figure based on the criteria that were used for all of the other veterans. Perhaps what we'll have to do, as I say, is turn around and.... Well, you've made an interesting suggestion. There has to be some rationale behind it.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Goldring.

I'm informed by the clerk that they're trying to start the House and I guess members are a little bit scarce. They're all here today. There will be a vote, though, apparently at 10:45 and bells at 10:15. So if we leave here at around 10:30....

I'm going to give other members a chance to ask questions and maybe try to come to a decision whether to reopen the hearing.

[Translation]

Mr. Mercier, you have five minutes.

Mr. Paul Mercier: Minister, I fully understand your objections, including the fact that various groups would like us to make some calculations to establish some criteria and come up with some average.

I will not take five minutes because I don't need that long to quote two proverbs that I would like us to get some inspiration from. The first is one that has been guiding me ever since I have been in politics. It says: “You cannot please everyone”. Whatever you do, there will always be some dissatisfied people, but you will have the greatest number of dissatisfied people if you don't act. My second proverb says: “It's better to let well alone”. If you try to establish the most equitable or comparable amount to the umpteenth decimal, you will never succeed. That is why I persist and maintain my initial proposal.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you for sharing that wisdom, Mr. Mercier.

Mr. Proud, and then I know Mr. Clouthier hopes to get in on this five-minute round.

Mr. George Proud: Mr. Chairman, I won't take my full twenty minutes or whatever it is I have.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. George Proud: First of all, I don't think we need to have more hearings. Let me put that to you. I don't need to be told, as Mrs. Wayne pointed out, that this young gentleman was taken a prisoner of war. I've heard all of those things. These people went through hell. Nobody in this room would ever deny that. They've gone through things that human beings shouldn't have to go through. I don't think we need to go through that rotation again. We've all heard this. Most of us who have been on this committee have heard all of these things.

I do agree that the organization should get together, come up with whatever for you, Mr. Minister, and give it to you. They should agree or disagree. They've got to make up their minds.

Mrs. Wayne mentioned the fact that if we go into the room it will be very political. I had always thought that this defence committee was one of the most non-political groups there was on the Hill. I really believe that.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: So did I until you voted against my compensation.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. George Proud: It wasn't political.

The question I'd like to ask the minister.... Mrs. Wayne also said—I'm quoting from Mrs. Wayne this morning quite a bit—that these other groups that are out there, like the ferry command of Newfoundland, the foresters, the other groups that are out there, shouldn't be taken into consideration if they're civilian groups.

Well, let me just say this. The Dominion Command of the Legion supports the merchant seamen's file. But if you go to Legions independently across the country, they will say these are just civilian groups and you shouldn't have any compensation for them. That's what the Legion—

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: No, no that's not what we said.

Mr. George Proud: No, no, but you said these were civilian groups, these other groups.

So what I'm saying to you, Minister, is if you're going to look at the cabinet for compensation for these merchant seamen—which I'm sure you will, and I hope you get it—you had better start looking for it also for these other groups, because next year we'll be sitting in this same room with this same group of people around the table saying that these people were denied these benefits since the end of the Second World War.

Whether we want to believe this or we don't want to believe it, these groups are out there now, and they're going to be coming. Already, as far as I am concerned—and I'm only speaking as an individual—a precedent was set when we gave compensation to the Hong Kong veterans. The precedent was set for the merchant seamen, and the precendent was set for all these other groups. So they are going to be coming back, civilian or non-civilian.

As far as the $100 million that was mentioned here a few minutes ago, that was set aside in 1993 after the bill went through because there was an assumption that there were a number coming up and it was going to cost a lot of money. They didn't use all that money, but that money's not sitting there waiting to be grabbed. It was sent back into general revenue. That's where that money ended up.

• 1010

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Clouthier, a couple of minutes.

Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.): Mr. Minister, I want to go on record as saying you're a brave man, because you're going to take more twists and turns in this issue than a proverbial brook trout going down Bissett Creek in my riding—and that's a pretty twisty, turny creek, let me tell you.

As far as I am concerned, Mr. Minister—and I want this on the public record, and hopefully something can be done—if the Government of Canada gives the merchant seamen an ex gratia payment, we will be the only government to do so. That has to be made perfectly clear: this has not been done before by any other government.

I know I've just been on this committee for two and a half years. I haven't been here nearly as long as George and as Elsie. But this would certainly be a precedent-setting move that we would make.

There's no question in my mind that they went through some terrible, terrible times. I'm listening to my colleagues opposite start bringing back theories from what the money was worth in 1944-45 and bringing it to 1999. I'm from the business arena, and I always believe that if you start bringing the past into the present, we're going to lose the future. The future is how are we going to look after our merchant mariners?

I believe you are on the right track, Mr. Minister. I agree with Elsie on this one. God forbid, I'm agreeing with Elsie on this. As a matter of fact, as an aside, Elsie said there's no politics around here, and she's the greatest politician, probably next to the chair, that we have sitting here.

Anyway, Mr. Minister, if we put these groups into a room and let them try to determine what the payment should be, I'm in complete agreement with that. My question to you, Mr. Minister, is what if—and this is a very strong possibility—those groups cannot come to an agreeable amount of compensation that should be paid? Will it then be their fault that if they can't come to some kind of an agreement, maybe there will be no payment made? I don't know.

If we're going to leave it with them, as Mrs. Wayne says, and if they can't come to an agreement, are they going to let the sand fall right through their fingers because they weren't strong enough to close the hand and say we're all going at this together?

I guess my question to you, Mr. Minister, is you set the ball in motion, and you're to be congratulated for it, but what happens if those four groups or five groups cannot come to an agreement on something? What do we do as a government?

The Chairman: Mr. Clouthier, I don't want to pre-empt the minister, but there's an urgent request from all parties that we proceed forthwith to the House. So we'll recess now, and reconvene if the minister can rejoin us. If not, we'll take up our discussion. We've been asked to go immediately to the House. I'm sorry.

The committee is recessed.

• 1014

• 1036

The Chairman: I don't see any sentiment to reopen the hearings. We had extensive hearings and we had extensive hearings on the compensation issue.

An hon. member: All you're doing is prolonging the agony.

The Chairman: Either the groups are going to get together and make a decision or they're not.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I think all of our colleagues who spoke today have said they're not in favour of having hearings again. But I made a suggestion that the groups get together, sit down, and come out with a united recommendation—

An hon. member: Don't say United Alternative.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: No, I won't. But the groups can make a recommendation to the minister, which the minister can then take to cabinet.

I think we have to look at who should be in that room with them. We're not in it, and the minister isn't in it.

Every time we turn around, we're all getting faxes—this group is making this statement, somebody else is making another statement, and it's all on the same two things: the numbers and the amount. Those are the two things. Those are the two things they have to go in on, and they have to become a united group. And when they come out, they make their presentation. That's it.

Mr. George Proud: Are you saying they should be in there alone, that there be nobody else in with them?

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: None of us are in there. I'm saying they're in there, and they get their act together. They come together, and that is it.

Mr. George Proud: They'd have to have a secretary or something in there with them.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Well, talk to the chair on that.

The Chairman: We don't quite have a quorum, but I think we can formally reconvene.

To the deputy minister and the other staff, I know the minister is not going to be able to rejoin us; I think we've had our full discussion with him. Unless you have some points to make, we could excuse you, unless you want to give any input before we are seized with this again.

Mr. Murray?

Mr. Larry Murray (Deputy Minister of Veterans Affairs): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The minister and I talked, and we thought if you did want to carry on, I'd represent him.

The Chairman: I thank you very much for being available.

Do you have a question, Mrs. Wayne?

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Larry, you were doing research on the numbers, and I told you about what Hill Wilson has. You've got the letter—or if you haven't got the letter, Mr. Baker has, and if not, we'll give you a copy of it.

What I want to know is how long do you think your research is going to take for you to come out and say that these are the numbers?

Mr. Larry Murray: Mr. Chairman, I don't think it will take all that long. In other words, we have people in Newfoundland now. We have been asked because all the organizations are uncomfortable with our numbers. So we have agreed that we should go back and double-check them. It's our intention to do that. We're doing that now. Then we'll have a meeting with the merchant navy organizations and sort that one out. As I think someone else said, that's not the big issue. We can sort that one out and reach an agreement relatively quickly.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Okay, thank you.

The Chairman: Mrs. Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Can I put a motion on the floor?

The Chairman: Yes. First, are there any more questions for the staff? No?

Thank you very much, gentlemen; we appreciate you being here.

We don't have an official quorum, but I'm still going to take.... We have a half-hour bell, and we're trying to finish this committee.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Could we ratify it later? Could we put it on and then—

The Chairman: Yes. I think what we'll do is take your motion and see if we get the official quorum or not.

Mrs. Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: The first part of the motion was that there be no further hearings on this matter, no more public hearings.

The Chairman: All right.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: That would be the first, and someone can put the good language on it. Second is that the ministry work with the various groups to arrive at a number as quickly as possible. And third is that all groups be convened together to come up with a proposal for the minister.

The Chairman: Okay, thank you. So that's a two-part motion. Are we clear on that?

While we're trying to get an official quorum, are there any comments on that motion? Mrs. Wayne.

• 1040

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I would just like to have our chairperson, Mr. O'Brien, put this meeting together, the timing and what have you. If we have to have it in a certain area and somebody has to be flown to it, then we have to make sure we can do that.

The Chairman: That's fine. I would undertake then to meet with the minister and tell him what the committee's wish is.

I don't hear any member of the committee on either side wanting to reopen the issue. Am I reading that correctly?

Some hon. members: Right.

The Chairman: Okay. So whether or not we get an official quorum today, I'm going to so advise the minister. He's an experienced man, and he had that impression as he left the room, because I spoke to him.

There's just nothing else we could accomplish by reopening these hearings. We've heard everybody who wanted to come to the committee. We heard them extensively. We heard them specifically on compensation as well as other things.

I'm going to take it then that we'll report that there was no official quorum, unless we get that in the next few minutes, but that's not the wish of the committee. If somebody wants to be technical, the committee can reconfirm that later, but the committee does ask the minister to meet as soon as possible with all the merchant mariner groups with a view to getting a consensus from them as soon as possible on the issue of compensation. That's what we want to do.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I have one thing on the minister meeting with them. Is the minister going to be there, or are we going to let these groups work it out?

The Chairman: What is your intention there, Mrs. Longfield?

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I think it could be a combination of both. I don't think it hurts if the minister goes in and chats with them and talks about his views and his concerns. And then I think the minister might want to leave the room and let them go at it. But I think the minister should at least meet with them and lay out some parameters, give them a timeline.

The Chairman: Yes. Well, I'll meet with the minister after this meeting and tell him what the committee's wish is.

Mr. Proud, did you have a...?

Mr. George Proud: I just wanted to say what Judi said: I think they should come to a decision and then the minister meet with them. That's all I want to say.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: They come to a decision first.

The thing is, it has to be set up, if at all possible, within the next couple of weeks, because they've been through torture.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Do we need an addendum that the committee provide funds where necessary to facilitate their getting together?

The Chairman: Sure, if it's necessary to help somebody get to the meeting, obviously we will, sure.

Just so you know, it wasn't an official quorum, but that's clearly the intention of everybody on the committee. We'll proceed on that basis.

Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned.