Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology

Issue 22 - Evidence

The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to which was referred Bill C-41, to amend the statute law in relation to veterans' benefits, met this day at 4:10 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.

Senator Michael Kirby (Chairman) in the Chair.

[English]

The Chairman: Honourable senators, I suggest that we begin.

By way of procedural background, the minister is going to join us as soon as Mr. Martin finishes his economic statement in the House. The vice-chairman of the committee, Senator LeBreton, and I have decided to start the meeting with the departmental officials. The minister is relatively new to his portfolio, having been appointed less than 36 hours ago, and his knowledge of the bill may be limited. We believe, therefore, that the officials can speak knowledgeably about the matter.

Welcome, Mr. Murray.

Mr. Larry Murray, Deputy Minister, Veterans Affairs Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The minister is looking forward to appearing before your committee. It will be his first committee appearance, and he will be here as soon as possible. I have with me today Mr. Richard Brunton, who is the departmental director of legislation and regulations, and Mr. Alex Robert, our chief of legislation.

I would like to say thank you to the committee, and through the committee to the Senate, for the speed with which you are handling this extremely important bill. We are certainly grateful, and I know that all the people affected are grateful as well.

The bill itself, without stealing too much of my minister's thunder, does three things.

First, it amends the Civilian War-related Benefits Act to extend veterans benefits to all civilian groups who served overseas in close support of the war effort. These include the Canadian Red Cross, St. John's Ambulance, Newfoundland Overseas Foresters Association, the Corps of Canadian Fire Fighters, and the Ferry Command pilots who ferried aircraft across the Atlantic, as well as a few other groups who assisted the military overseas.

Second, it amends the Pension Act to allow Canadian Forces members who have service-related disabilities to collect pensions while still serving, thereby achieving equity with members whose disabilities arose in special duty areas and reserve force service. This will also apply to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Third, the bill would make a number of minor, but I believe quite significant and sensible improvements in wording, and if I could call it that, "legislative housekeeping."

Mr. Chairman, since my minister will give a longer statement, perhaps we could go to questions now.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Senator Meighen: Welcome, gentlemen. I will be brief, for reasons to which the chair has alluded.

Mr. Murray, you list a number of support groups to whom coverage is now being extended. Are you aware of any other groups that are not included? If so, for what reason?

Mr. Murray: Are you referring to those groups with overseas service?

Senator Meighen: Yes.

Mr. Murray: I do not believe that any have been excluded. I will ask Mr. Brunton, who is more of a historical expert than I. However, I believe that we have tried to incorporate all the groups that served overseas. A World War I group of canteen workers was originally included in the bill, but we discovered that there were none of them left.

Mr. Richard A. Brunton, Director, Portfolio Legislation, Veterans Affairs Canada: We believe that we have identified all the civilian groups with overseas service under military-type conditions.

Senator Meighen: Am I correct that there is no continuing controversy as to what constitutes overseas service? Does service in Newfoundland or in Prince Edward Island constitute overseas service?

Mr. Brunton: Service in Newfoundland itself does not, but service to get to Newfoundland or to get from Newfoundland to Canada does, as is the same in the case of P.E.I.

Senator Meighen: Let us suppose that I was in ferry command, and my plane crashed between Halifax and Newfoundland?

Mr. Brunton: That would be overseas service.

Senator Murray: To be clear, I believe that one group within ferry command that is not included here is the ground crew who worked on the bases in Canada. They are not included because they do not qualify for that overseas service.

Mr. Brunton: Yes, that it true. However, we did include a special provision that included ground crews if they served overseas, as the armed forces did.

Senator Meighen: Perhaps I am going down a line of questioning here that would be better saved for another day. Let me raise it, and then I will pass on.

What if one was given no choice and was ordered to stay in Halifax? I know of such a case. An individual who was a medical doctor or a dentist was ordered to stay in Halifax. He worked in the area of pathology to identify people who had been killed, and all that sort of business. He had no choice. He was told to stay in Halifax, yet when it came time to qualify for entry to a veteran's facility, he was denied a place because he had not served overseas.

Mr. Murray: I would argue that that is similar to the Newfoundland forester who goes overseas, tries to join the armed forces and is unable to because his work in the Newfoundland forestry corps in Scotland is deemed essential to the war effort. As a result of that decision, he was not a member of the armed forces during the war, and he did not qualify for benefits until now.

Many of those in the merchant navy services tried to join the armed forces but were too young. Therefore they stayed in the merchant navy because they were doing essential work, and arguably, received fewer benefits.

That is how I personally would view that sort of case. I do not know whether you wish to have additional information?

Senator Meighen: I was going to go on to another area.

Mr. Brunton: Only if you are satisfied with my deputy's answer.

Senator Meighen: I would like to hear your amplification.

Mr. Brunton: I think you are referring to the distinction between those of our veterans who have overseas service and those who have Canada service only. It is true that that distinction has been made and has been with us for many decades.

It is not quite as serious a distinction as it once was. For example, the Canada service veteran always had insurance coverage under the Pension Act, the same as an overseas service veteran. Likewise, a decade or so ago, the Canada service veteran was provided access to the VIP program.

However, the War Veterans Allowance Act was always meant for people who served in combat and served overseas. The theory was that their service in combat rendered them more in need of financial aid from the state, and that this aid should come from the federal level, not the provincial level, as it normally would. That is the rationale. It is based on the distinction that you are questioning.

Senator Meighen: I assume, because I do not see it, that there is no retroactivity here in the payment of any of these allowances?

Mr. Murray: That is the case, Senator Meighen.

Senator Meighen: Was it considered? If so, why was it rejected?

Mr. Murray: It was considered. It was examined in great depth. It was determined that we could not accomplish it. To be honest with you, we were concerned that if the bill, for whatever reason, did not make it through the legislative process, the delay in implementing the second provision I mentioned would be too great. That provision is the payment of disability pensions to still-serving members of the Canadian Forces, which was a recommendation of October, 1998.

If this bill were not to make it through, then we would go back and try again for some form of retroactivity. However, it was not possible at the time. Quite frankly, the decision was based on whether or not we could get the bill through now and get on with it.

Senator Meighen: The theory is that a half a loaf is better than no loaf.

Mr. Murray: I hope that it is better than half a loaf.

Senator Meighen: In your opinion, is it a principle that could be revisited?

Mr. Murray: Yes, in certain circumstances it could be.

Senator Meighen: Does it extend to spouses?

Mr. Murray: No, it does not extend to spouses. I am not sure what you mean by that.

Senator Meighen: I refer to survivor benefits.

Mr. Brunton: Senator, are you asking if this bill extends the same benefits to spouses and surviving spouses that it extends to veterans and civilian groups?

Senator Meighen: Yes.

Mr. Brunton: It does indeed. If you look at any of the civilian provisions, any of those civilian groups at the beginning of the bill -- it simply states that the Pension Act applies to the civilian group as if that civilian group had been part of the armed forces. That means the entire Pension Act provisions for spouses at the married rate of pension, and the rates for surviving spouses, also apply.

Senator Meighen: Is that only if the beneficiary is alive on the day this bill receives Royal Assent?

Mr. Brunton: No. A widow of a civilian who died 20 years ago -- who was ineligible or perhaps never received the benefit because it had not been applied for -- can be eligible under the Pension Act.

Senator Meighen: Does that also apply without retroactivity?

Mr. Brunton: That is right.

Senator Meighen: Thank you.

The Chairman: We are now delighted to welcome the minister. Congratulations on your appointment.

[Translation]

The Honourable Ronald J. Duhamel, PC, MP, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Western Economic Diversification) (Francophonie): Honourable senators, I am very pleased to appear before you today regarding Bill C-41. Having attended similar meetings with senators in the past, I must say that I always found they were very well prepared and asked very good questions. That is a bit intimidating for a new minister.

Allow me first of all to pay tribute to the protagonist of this bill, my predecessor in the position of Minister of Veterans Affairs, the Honourable George Baker.

We are all familiar with his unconditional dedication to the cause of veterans. I am thinking more specifically of the veterans of the merchant marine, civilians who served in wartime and current members of the Canadian Armed Forces who will benefit from this bill.

It will be difficult to succeed George S. Baker. I can only promise to do my best for Canada's veterans and peacekeepers. My commitment in this regard is profound and sincere.

[English]

As you well know, I am here today to request your support for the speedy passage of this bill. I have been a minister for a very short time.

[Translation]

I am counting on your indulgence and patience. The tenor of the bill was explained to me and I understand its major aspects. I am accompanied today by Mr. Larry Murray, Deputy Minister of Veterans Affairs, Mr. Richard A. Brunton, Director of Legislation and Regulations, and Mr. Alex Robert, Chief of Legislation. We should therefore be able to answer your questions about Bill C-41.

I would hope that we might achieve speedy passage of this bill because it contains, I believe, long-awaited and much-sought-after benefit enhancements for wartime civilian groups and the modern Canadian forces. The wartime civilian groups include such heroic organizations as the Ferry Command, the Canadian Fire Fighters in the United Kingdom, the Red Cross nurses, and the Newfoundland Foresters.

These groups served overseas alongside the Canadian forces, and under similar military-type conditions. Therefore, it seems to me that it only stands to reason that they should have access to the same veterans benefits as military veterans. I am told that Bill C-41 achieves exactly that in terms of veterans disability pensions and income support allowances. I am told that additional regulations are in the works which will grant similar equal access to the veterans health care program.

For the modern Canadian forces as well as for the RCMP, I am happy to say that the bill brings their disability benefits up to date in the world of workers' compensation. Specifically, it allows pensions for permanent disability to be paid while still serving. Some members of the forces already have this right, namely those whose disabilities arose in peacekeeping operations in what are called "special duty areas," as well as those who become disabled in the reserves. By granting the same right to receive disability benefits before discharge to the rest of our regular forces personnel, we establish equality for all of our Canadian Forces, men and women, who become disabled in the line of duty.

As you know, Bill C-41 is an omnibus bill, so there is a great deal more to it than these two main changes. Much of it is straightforward legislative housekeeping. However, several items are worth mentioning. For instance, Veterans Affairs already has the legislative authority to remit or forgive overpayments of the War Veterans Allowance. The bill extends this authority to overpayments of other veterans benefits such as disability pensions or health care payments. The key advantage of this type of remission authority is that it will allow us to forgive overpayments that are due to administrative error on our part, and are not the fault of an 80-year-old veteran or widow to whom the relatively small amount of money means so very much.

I will not say much more than that, Mr. Chairman. We will be happy to answer any questions that you and the other members of this committee may have. I believe that you may have already started the process. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, minister.

Senator Wiebe: Minister Duhamel, I add my congratulations, not only on your appointment, but on the excellent way in which you presented the case for the bill today. It is a good sign for future committees.

I was very fortunate in that I asked for, and received, an excellent briefing on Bill C-41 from Mr. Brunton, and I thank you for that. Thus, I do not have any questions on Bill C-41, but I sincerely congratulate the department on an excellent piece of proposed legislation. This is something that our veterans have been looking forward to, and it is certainly well deserved.

I was happy to hear that there are some changes in the works that can be handled by regulation. As you know, the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs is now studying the progress of some of the suggestions that it presented to the department a few years ago. Many of them can be dealt with by regulation and do not require legislation.

I do not want to get into the continuing work of the committee, because this is not the proper time, but I have one question concerning individual veterans who are seeking benefits. There appears to be an onus on the veterans to provide proof that these benefits are actually owing and due to them. Is there anything in this bill, or anything coming up in the future, that would lessen that burden of proof? Sometimes it is difficult for some of the older veterans to provide it.

Mr. Duhamel: Let me say first that I am very sympathetic to your comment. I do not know the answer, but I will ask the officials whether that is a possibility.

Mr. Murray: On the issue of the burden of proof, I sympathize, as does the minister. As the committee is aware, ours is the only legislation in the country, I think, that does give the benefit of the doubt to the applicant. Our pension officers at all 30-some district offices across the country strive mightily to help in every way possible.

We are the only government department, at any level, of which I am aware, that actually has pension advocates, lawyers whose role is to support the applicant at the next two levels if the first decision is not favourable.

Having said that, I also receive letters on the issue of burden of proof and it is something we need to examine. I am not sure whether we can deal with it through regulations. It may be more of a cultural issue. It seems to apply more to the newer veterans, if I can refer to them as that -- in other words, the peacekeeping veterans. We are working very hard to establish better communications, better dialogue, a continuing one- or two-day-a-week presence, and to do a better job of case management.

I will ask Mr. Brunton, but I am not aware that we can do much more through regulations, given their nature, but I am not an expert in that area.

Mr. Brunton: There are regulations governing procedure, but the key point here is that, in theory, all war veterans and all modern peacekeeping veterans have a complete record of their medical conditions and what happened during service in their service files.

In theory, the burden of proof is not on the veterans at all. They merely need to apply, to fill out a form, and we will then do all the work. There is usually no question about disabilities of today. When we find that disabilities have a medical link back to something that happened during service, then decisions are made.

My colleagues in the adjudication section tell me that they do invariably apply the benefit of the doubt. Obviously, some applicants will feel that was not done, and my deputy and my minister probably hear more about those cases than about the successes.

Mr. Duhamel: Senator, your question is greatly appreciated. The spirit of your comment has been understood by all of us. We would want to be as flexible, as sensitive, and as helpful as possible.

Senator Wiebe: Thank you. It is wonderful to hear that.

Senator LeBreton: In your presentation, minister, you asked for speedy passage of this bill. I can only say that from our side, the Progressive Conservative side, I totally agree, because none of us would want to suffer the wrath of Elsie Wayne if we ever held this up.

Mr. Duhamel: She asked me my first question.

Senator LeBreton: Then you know how we feel. How many people are presently included in these wartime civilian groups? How many people are we talking about at present?

Mr. Duhamel: I am told there are 1,500 roughly.

Senator LeBreton: Is there any retroactivity in this for the families of people who have passed on? Before you arrived, Senator Meighen was talking about these benefits accruing to spouses or partners. Is there any retroactivity for people who perhaps did not live long enough to have the benefit of this proposed legislation?

Mr. Brunton: There is no retroactivity of payment, but as I said to Senator Meighen, a widow of a civilian who died 20 years ago has the right to apply for a widow's pension on the basis that her late husband should have been given a pension. Her right to that begins on the day that she applies, if the bill is passed.

Senator LeBreton: What is the department doing to communicate with these recipients? Are you just leaving it to the widows or widowers to seek payment themselves? Is some special effort being made to reach out to people who served in these various groups?

Mr. Duhamel: My understanding is that there is such an effort. I would hope so, but I will let the officials give you the specifics.

Mr. Murray: That is an excellent question. We will put the word out as best we can through the Legion and other such organizations. We had a lesson on this recently in the context of the merchant navy compensation package. Since 1992, certain estimates have been made of how many merchant navy veterans would opt for the health care benefits and for the package that we are discussing today. That predicted level was never reached.

In the context of the recent merchant navy compensation package, we sent out individual applications, and we are now being inundated with applications not just for the compensation package, but also for the benefits to which they were entitled but of which, for whatever reason, they were not aware.

We must pay more attention to our outreach programs. The merchant navy case points out that our past efforts have not been adequate in ensuring that the people who have a right to these benefits are aware of those rights, particularly now that their average age is 79 and a half. We will have to put some effort into that and will be looking at it carefully.

Senator Carstairs: I have a question about an 88-year-old. My father-in-law was in Ferry Command. He was originally a member of the Royal Air Force and was then transferred here to Canada as part of Ferry Command. His wife and son had preceded him because they were both Canadians who came to Canada in 1940. He then made Canada his permanent home in 1943, and has remained here ever since.

I would assume that, under clause 52, he does not qualify here because he was a member of the Royal Air Force. My question is, does he qualify for any veterans health benefits? He does receive a pension from the Royal Air Force, so it is obviously not appropriate for him to also receive a pension from us. It is one or the other, it seems to me. Is he entitled to any health benefits?

Mr. Brunton: The short answer is yes, but maybe I could get details on that case.

Mr. Duhamel: That is a very prudent answer. Thank you.

Mr. Brunton: The case is complex in that he was a member of the RAF. He may or may not have had Canadian domicile when he served as a member of Ferry Command. We would have to look at how exactly it works out. The general rule is that Canada will pay a top-up to any person who served in the British forces and is getting the British pension. As a result of receiving that top-up, they should, in principle, get Canadian veterans health care for that same pension condition. There is a general positivity there.

Mr. Murray: We do have an ongoing relationship with our principal allies -- for example, we recently hosted a delegation from the U.K. We compare notes. We track each other's veterans. We ensure that the veterans in question are getting the maximum benefit from either country. You are absolutely correct that they cannot collect a benefit from both, but we do ensure that they are getting the best deal possible from whichever nation it is.

We have very close relationships with the U.K., Norway, Australia and the U.S. to ensure that that happens.

Senator Carstairs: Thank you. I was curious from his perspective, and from that of other veterans who might fit into that particular scenario.

On a matter related to veterans health services, although not really to this bill, what is left of those health services? We have closed a number of our veterans hospitals. What is left for veterans in terms of health care services?

Mr. Murray: We actually provide quite extensive health care, depending on the province to some extent, and to be honest, depending on the health care region. We provide three programs.

We provide long-term care for those veterans who qualify -- in other words, institutional care.

We provide something called the Veterans Independence Program. It came in in the middle 1980s, and was the first of its kind. It is an excellent program tailored to veterans of a certain age, and includes things like nursing care. It also includes grass cutting, or whatever other services will enable the veteran to remain at home with a quality of life, preferably in a family situation. We do that across the country, and it is an excellent program. Veterans prefer it. It is one-quarter to one-fifth of the cost of institutional care.

We also provide what we call "Health Care Programs," which includes pharmaceuticals, things like artificial limbs, wheelchairs -- all those sorts of things.

We actually have an initiative underway to hopefully tie all those programs together such that we can provide the most sensible package to the individual, catered to the particular veteran and his or her circumstances. It is very extensive. Our budget is about $2 billion a year, and $1.2 billion of that goes to disability pensions. Depending on the year, $550 million to $600 million a year is spent on health care. It is a very extensive package.

We work extensively with the provinces on the long-term care institutional package. We try to ensure there is a common standard across the country. In fact we are working with the health certification national organization to try to do that. Quite frankly, this committee has made a wonderful contribution to all that with its report on our activities in that area. It has become a blueprint. It arrived just before I did, and I can assure you that it was an excellent report. I think we have just sent the committee an update which I hope will demonstrate clearly that we are doing a lot of work, and that we are following up on your excellent recommendations in that area.

Senator Kennedy: I notice in the clause-by-clause explanation, looking at clause 1 of this bill, that it is described as a catch-all provision intended to include persons as members of various overseas service groups. I am struck by that phrase, "catch-all," which suggests to me that in drafting this, you have been fairly careful not to be too precise in that first clause because there may be groups that you are presently not aware of that might qualify for this. Am I reading that correctly?

Mr. Duhamel: My understanding of "catch-all" is that it identifies the groups that were not previously included. I do not know if it includes a particular group of individuals who have not been identified as a result of this legislative effort. I think that is the point you make, senator. I will turn to those who have the expertise.

Mr. Brunton: That is my work, that catch-all clause.

Senator Kennedy: It is a nice phrase. I am pleased to see it there because it suggests a very positive approach.

Mr. Brunton: Thank you. It was aimed at individuals. We are fortunate that we have fairly complete listings of who served with the civilian groups involved. It will be easy, for example, to verify the service of a Canadian fire fighter because we have a complete listing of their roll call, and similarly for the Red Cross nurses and the St. John's Ambulance. Ferry Command is a little more difficult. There were people coming and going all the time, and they operated under individual contracts. My colleagues and I detected a need to have a catch-all provision that would allow us to include someone even though he or she may not be on the nominal roll.

Your question was whether this provision will allow us to recognize a new group, if there is some other group out there that we simply do not know about. No, it will not. If some other group manifests itself, we will have to return to Parliament to have that group recognized.

Senator Kennedy: The way it is worded, it sounds quite generous, and I commend you on that.

Senator Banks: My question is really not substantive. I will direct it to Mr. Brunton, because it is supplementary to Senator Meighen's earlier questions. I want to find out how sharp the cut-off knife is.

Senator Meighen gave an example of someone in Ferry Command. You explained in answer to his first question that Newfoundland was not overseas per se, if I understood correctly, and that Prince Edward Island was not overseas per se. However, in answer to his second question, if one were shot down while flying from Halifax to St. John's, that would be overseas. What would happen if I were flying from St. John's to Gander? Does it have to do with where my flight began or what my general assignment was, or is it that day, that trip?

Similarly, if I were a member of the merchant marine, I am assuming that if I left Halifax on a trip to Murmansk, that would be overseas. However, if I were on a ship registered in Halifax which had made a run to St. John's, was making its next run to Come By Chance, and suffered a torpedo attack during that time, would I be disqualified for the merchant marine coverage because I left a port in Newfoundland to go to another port in Newfoundland? What about the earlier case, in which I flew from an airport in Newfoundland to another airport in Newfoundland?

Mr. Brunton: A provision in the existing legislation includes any voyage which was attacked by the enemy, or in which your ship was in the company or in the vicinity of a ship that was attacked by the enemy. That would be defined as qualifying service, yes.

Senator Banks: Would a St. Lawrence freighter fall within that qualification?

Mr. Brunton: In the case of the merchant navy, there are a number of indicators of service equivalent to military or defence service. One is that the crew was being paid the war-risk bonus. Another is that the ship was on a foreign voyage. That is a classification under the Canada Shipping Act, and every voyage was classified that way, so we would know. In the case of home trade voyages, there is a requirement that the voyage must have been at least international or interprovincial in order to qualify, unless the crew was receiving the war-risk bonus.

Senator Banks: I am getting picky here, but if I were on a St. Lawrence freighter that sailed from one port in Quebec to another port in Quebec and suffered a torpedo attack -- which did happen -- I am not qualified for benefits under this bill.

Mr. Brunton: Regrettably, that is incorrect. You are. You most certainly are.

Senator Banks: Then I am glad that you said I was wrong. Thank you.

The Chairman: I have one last question. As someone whose parents were Newfoundlanders and whose relatives all live in Newfoundland, I have not heard of the Newfoundland Foresters. Can you tell me who they are? I find it interesting. Obviously they were not Canadians during the Second World War, since it was before 1949.

I am delighted they were included in the bill, but what is the policy justification for that?

Mr. Murray: It is a fascinating story. During World War I, foresters went from Newfoundland -- indeed, I think also from Canada -- to serve overseas.

The Chairman: As foresters?

Mr. Murray: Yes. Cutting timber was an essential service, but in World War I apparently there was enough time to make them part of the army, so they went in uniform. When the Newfoundland foresters went in World War II, I gather it had always been the intention that it would be the same. In fact, I understand that they were verbally told that that would be the case. The reality is that they never became part of the army. They remained civilians, they performed an essential service, and as I said, many applied to join the armed forces and in many cases they were not admitted. When they returned they had not been in military service.

I believe many of them were forest workers from the Gander region. I gather this has been an issue for many years. They were entitled to some benefits. In fact all of these groups were entitled to a range of benefits. However, they were all treated somewhat differently, so we have tried here to give them the same benefits as they would have received for military service. I believe there is fairly solid anecdotal evidence that they were promised certain things that, for a variety of reasons, did not happen, but they did perform essential services. They did travel through dangerous waters. They went overseas by ship in convoy.

The Chairman: They did that as Newfoundlanders, not as Canadians, and we have simply said that because they are Canadians now we will include them, the logic being that people who were in both services are entitled to the best pension or best benefits of either country, right?

Mr. Murray: That would be my understanding. Newfoundlanders have become Canadians, so they are all included, whatever their service.

The Chairman: They are counted as being in the Canadian service.

Mr. Murray: We treat them as Canadians.

The Chairman: Would that apply if it were pre-1949?

Mr. Murray: Yes, and I think in every case it was pre-1949. Where it becomes interesting is if there was a Newfoundlander -- and I presume there are several -- who served in the Royal Navy or the Royal Air Force or the British Army. Then you get into the kind of situation raised by Senator Carstairs, where you actually have someone who was a Newfoundlander then, and is a Canadian now, who served in the RAF.

Mr. Brunton: This is an important part of Newfoundland history, as I have learned, and the key here is to remember that coal was a strategic industry, especially the British coal mines. The coal mines used pit props -- large beams -- to hold the roofs up; therefore wood became a strategic commodity in both World War I and World War II. In both wars, the Canadian Forestry Corps was part of the Canadian Army, and the British Forestry Corps was part of the British Army. These people had experience as lumberjacks and they were sent up to Scotland, in uniform, to cut all these trees.

In World War II, because of the urgency, as the deputy said, the British government asked the Newfoundland government of the time to send them over without training or putting them into uniform. As a result, 3,680 Newfoundlanders did exactly that -- they joined this unit that was created by the Newfoundland government at the request of the British government. That was a huge percentage of the Newfoundland population.

The population was approximately 200,000 at the time, and 3,680 of them went overseas to work in Scotland, along with many thousands of Canadian and British army personnel. They worked side by side with veterans and they were told that they would be treated as veterans. When they returned, Newfoundland was beginning the process of deciding whether or not to join Canada. It was also a poor country. It did not have the resources to provide adequate veterans benefits. Therefore, when the terms of union between Canada and Newfoundland were being negotiated in 1948, they included specific provisions whereby Newfoundland veterans -- meaning Newfoundlanders who had served in British Forces during World War II -- would be treated as Canadian veterans and get the same benefits.

By an accident of history, the Newfoundland foresters, who were supposed to be included in that, were left out. I am told that that occurred because their representative on the team that came from Newfoundland to Ottawa died in the Lord Elgin Hotel the day before the negotiations were to begin.

The Chairman: Thank you for that.

Senator Cohen: If a Canadian spouse were to remarry after the death of a veteran, what would happen to the pension that was due?

Mr. Brunton: Until 1989 that pension would cease, or they would no longer be eligible. An amendment removing that limitation was introduced in 1989 and they would then be eligible for the same pension benefits, whether they remarry or not.

Senator Cook: I was born on the south coast of Newfoundland. Out of the dim recesses of my childhood -- and this will date me -- I remember hearing stories about Newfoundland men joining the "Free French" and going to St. Pierre. Is there anything in your archives about that?

Mr. Brunton: It is obviously within the realm of possibilities. I expect Canadians did so as well, but I have not uncovered anything about that in my historical research.

Senator Cook: I wondered if there was anyone on my isolated part of the coast that would fall into that category and if they would be eligible.

Mr. Brunton: The Free French was a resistance group and our legislation excludes resistance groups from veteran status.

The Chairman: I thank you for appearing before us.

Honourable senators, are we prepared to proceed to clause by clause?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: Honourable senators, may I have a motion then to report the bill back to the Senate without amendment?

Senator Carstairs: I so move.

Senator LeBreton: I should put on the record that I will second it, so I will not suffer Elsie's wrath.

The Chairman: Yes, we can absolutely do that. We would not want Elsie on your case, or on ours either.

Is it agreed, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: Thank you. I will report the bill back to the Senate tomorrow without amendment.

The committee adjourned.