Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you all for coming today. We fully appreciate how difficult this is for each of you. Certainly, the amount of time and suffering is real. Nobody doubts that. I think everybody around this committee, in looking at the issues, tries to be open and fair. I'm going to disagree a little with some of the comments made, but I want to explain why and see what your response might be.
I want to point out that, going right back to the 1960s, governments failed to deal with the issue. So when it was dealt with, there were going to be problems. I think Ms. Sgro would agree with this. I think everybody recognized that. As time went by, it became more difficult to do the job correctly and resolve the issues. As your stories today attest, the amount of complications and challenges are huge. There's no question about that.
I also want to put on record that we keep talking about compensation. This is recognition of time passed, and a lot of the records are so old they could not be dealt with. The $20,000 payments aren't for the injuries or suffering of any individual. They're given in recognition that those individuals were affected by this issue. Therefore the recognition, the amount of money, does not necessarily equate directly with any one individual's suffering. It was done. Nearly 2,700 people have received it.
I'm not sure there's a right or wrong. I wanted to note that the very study the former Liberal government put together became the basis for the jump-off point. What has become apparent is that there cannot be an exactly correct record. I notice Minister Thompson's name came up several times. He is the first minister of any Government of Canada to bring about a recognition of suffering and a payment for it. I think that's important for the record. Whatever government did it, there were going to be challenges, questions, and difficulties. As we're finding out, the story is not over yet.
If you stood back and looked at it objectively, you'd have to say that this federal government is the only government in the history of Canada that has provided compensation for a problem admittedly too horrific to be satisfied solely by financial means. It's easy to take potshots and point out what was or wasn't said. The usual date for compensation in government starts when the government was sworn in, which happens to be the case here. It doesn't mean this is the point in history that makes it right or wrong, but this is the normal thing for governments to do, to begin with the day they became the government.
We're here to try to learn more. The questions and answers put forth today are on record and are looked at carefully. When Ms. Sgro asked about the inquiry, she was talking about an inquiry on the whole issue. I got the sense that the inquiry you want is just about payments. If there's a further look, it's a look at the whole thing to show how difficult it is to end up doing the correct thing.
It's important that we continue with this issue; it's not going away. We need to remind ourselves that other jurisdictions are looking at it. The American example, by the way, is a compensation. It's not an ex gratia payment; it's a compensation program. That means there are different criteria. This gets into pensions and all kinds of other things as well.
What I'd like to do is get your comments, as the whole process moves forward. It's been a long time coming—there's no question about it.
I start with the premise that, okay, mistakes have been made, and I don't think anybody is going to disagree that maybe mistakes were made. I start with the premise that, okay, something has been done. If something had not been done in 2006, then nothing would have been done and we would be in the mess where nobody received anything. I think it's important to look at that. I know you're saying, how do we move on and push it further?
Having made those points, I would open it up if you would like to comment or make further suggestions. I would certainly welcome that. I don't want to go to a specific question at this point.