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, April 22, 1999

• 0902

[English]

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

We have witnesses dealing with the issue of the merchant marine possible compensation. We also have a motion from Mr. Laurin, which we'll deal with after the witnesses, and a notice of motion from Mr. Goldring, which is being distributed, and we'll deal with that at the next meeting. By that point it will have its 24 hours' notice and we'll deal with it then. I would just say I don't want to open up debate on it, so it's just at this point a notice of motion.

I would note that the committee is scheduled at this point to have the Minister of Veterans Affairs before us on May 13 for estimates. So I'll just leave that with the committee's consideration, and also Mr. Goldring, and we'll deal with his motion next meeting if he wishes. But at this point it's just a notice of motion.

Mr. Laurin, your motion, which has been given proper notice time-wise, we will deal with after the witnesses. I think we'll proceed that way.

Ladies and gentlemen, by way of a brief introduction, I would just indicate to you that this committee is involved in two important issues more or less simultaneously. On the defence side we're into an intensive review and study of procurement, and we will be submitting a report to the minister, who is very supportive of this review of procurement, with certain suggestions for improving the procurement process if we find there are ways we can suggest. And probably that will be the case.

On the veterans side of SCONDVA, of course there's no need to remind you we're dealing with the issue of possible compensation to the merchant mariners. We've had a number of witnesses to date. We have more, of course, this morning. We are hopeful that we will be able to conclude our hearings and deal with this issue before Parliament breaks for the summer period. That is our hope, and I think that is the probability, that we will conclude before that time.

Unfortunately, there has been some confusion about witnesses—are they going to appear or are they not? I won't belabour that point, but suffice it to say that as the chair I have to make sure everybody gets a fair opportunity to appear. However, when we schedule witnesses we're counting on them and we can't have them saying yes and no back and forth, changing their minds almost hourly, which has unfortunately been the case with one particular witness. So we'll iron that out and we'll welcome everybody who wants to present testimony to the committee vis-à-vis the issue of merchant mariners' compensation.

• 0905

We do have a timeline we're trying to hold to, which is to have all our hearings completed and a decision made and our report made on this issue before the summer recess. That is certainly our goal; there is no change in that, and we're going to strive our best to hold to that.

I would like to welcome our witnesses today and ask them to come forward to the table. Mr. Allan MacIsaac, president of the Canadian Merchant Navy Veterans Association; Captain Tom Brooks, deputy master, Ottawa/Hull Division, Company of Master Mariners of Canada; Captain Peter Ady, national counsellor, Company of Master Mariners of Canada; and Captain Miriam Van Roosmalen, director, Ottawa/Hull Division, Company of Master Mariners of Canada.

Welcome, gentlemen and lady. We're very happy to welcome you to this committee this morning and to hear your testimony, following which we will have questions of course from members on both sides, probably two rounds of questions, as time permits.

Did I see a point of order from Mr. Goldring, before we proceed?

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to talk about the notice of motion I presented. I understand we did have it in in the required length of time, and I would also like to ask a question on the expected appearance of the minister in May. Is that a tentative plan, or is that definitely scheduled?

The Chairman: Well, it's a firm date as far as we're concerned, and my understanding is that the minister is available only at that time. What I would like to do is get into this issue when we follow the witnesses. Is that all right?

Mr. Peter Goldring: All right, but in the meantime could I leave this notice of motion to stand as is, unless we have clarification that is a definite date when the minister would be appearing?

The Chairman: Well, when we're through with these witnesses we'll get some advice from Mr. Wood and we'll clarify the matter at that time.

Mr. Peter Goldring: All right, thank you.

The Chairman: Again, welcome to the witnesses. We're anxious to hear your testimony. Who's going to begin? Mr. MacIsaac, are you going to start, sir?

Mr. Allan MacIsaac (President, Canadian Merchant Navy Veterans Association; Merchant Navy Coalition for Equality): Yes, sir.

I'm the president of the Canadian Merchant Navy Veterans Association, or at least I'm one of the presidents, and I'm the chairman of the Merchant Navy Coalition for Equality.

Mr. Chairman, this is the first time I have appeared before such a distinguished committee as this, and I'm not familiar with your rules and procedure. I would appreciate your patience, and I'm sure you'll call me into line if I get onto a tangent.

The Chairman: Well, you're very welcome. I'm sure you'll do well. You know the subject at hand. As long as your comments are relevant to the issue of possible compensation for merchant mariners, there's no problem. You make your submission. Any others who wish to add comments as well would be welcome to do that. Following the complete submission from your delegation I will turn to the members, and we will begin probably two rounds of questions for the bulk of the time.

We do encourage witnesses to highlight. We have quite a bit of material in front of us, which we've all had an opportunity to review. Unless you want to read it into the record word for word for whatever reason, and that's acceptable, it's probably good to bear in mind that often the most fruitful discussion at these committees emanates from questions from the members and answers by the witnesses.

The testimony is on the record now because it's been submitted in writing. So whatever additional comments you wish to make, that's why you're here now. Then we'll go to the questions. So you have the option to read your submission if you feel that's something you definitely want to do, but oftentimes witnesses find it's more efficacious to highlight what their written submission has already said. That's your own judgment, sir. We're anxious to hear your comments.

Mr. Allan MacIsaac: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'll be as brief as possible.

• 0910

Accompanying me today are some seafarers from the Toronto area I would like to introduce to the committee. There are Doug Poole, Cliff Craig, Jerry Haughey, Charlie Atkinson, Hal Roberts, and George Henderson.

The Chairman: Welcome.

Mr. Allan MacIsaac: You will note, Mr. Chairman, that we're not wearing our medals and ribbons today. Somebody said we should have, that it would identify us as veterans. I can assure you, we're all veterans. We're keeping our ribbons and medals shined so that when we return to Parliament Hill to pick up our compensation we'll be in good shape.

The Chairman: I can assure you that this committee is well aware of your service to this country, whether you're wearing the medals or not. Your record speaks for itself.

Mr. Allan MacIsaac: Thank you very much.

With regrets, Bill Bruce and Bill Riddell and George Shaker are unable to be here. They are representatives of the Merchant Navy Coalition for Equality.

I also should tell you that I talked to Gordon Olmstead yesterday afternoon, who is quite ill, as you know. He asked me to pass his best regards on to you, Mr. Chairman, and all the rest of the committee.

I'm also pleased to be in the company of Tom Brooks, who is representing the Company of Master Mariners with me today. It's an honour to share this morning with him.

I would just like to mention, Mr. Chairman, that my shipmate from Newfoundland, Cyrl Brooks, has put together a chart showing the merchant navy ships that were sunk on Canada's east coast, off the coast of Newfoundland, and touching on Land's End in England. He asked if I would present a copy of that chart to each political party to your committee. I think you will find it very interesting. When I was leaving home yesterday morning my grandson thought they were humungous firecrackers. He asked if I was going to a party. I hope Elsie Wayne doesn't mind, but I said I was going to join Elsie Wayne's party.

Those charts will show you that the war was on our doorstep. They will show ships that were sunk up the St. Lawrence River at the mouth of the Saguenay and outside Halifax Harbour and even in the Harbour of Wabana in Newfoundland. It seems a little incredible, Mr. Chairman, that for a good period of time we were, as merchant navy personnel, refused recognition in those waters.

I'm also pleased to say that we have Fred Herrndorf from the Naval Officers Association of Canada here supporting us today.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I'd be pleased to read my brief. I would make you aware that my brief was submitted before Bill C-61 was passed. However, I would like to read it into the record.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. We are pleased the committee unanimously passed a resolution recommending a lump-sum payment to wartime merchant seamen.

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): On a point of order, before Mr. MacIsaac gets going, I just want to clarify that opening statement. I believe that in that opening remark he thanks the committee, as you see, for passing a resolution recommending a lump-sum payment. I believe the records are going to show, Mr. Chairman, that no such resolution was ever passed. The only resolution I'm aware of is the one we passed that called for these hearings, which we are now undertaking.

I just wanted to clarify this point, because I don't want any of our witnesses and the members they represent to have that false impression. The committee is studying the issue of compensation, and will make a recommendation when the study is completed.

The Chairman: That's quite correct.

I don't know, Mr. MacIsaac, if you misspoke yourself or not. Mr. Wood's comment is 100% correct, of course, as all members of the committee know. That's why I used the words, in introducing the subject today, of “possible compensation”. There's been absolutely no decision taken.

There has been some unfortunate media speculation I read that somehow the committee is leaning one way or the other. That's totally inaccurate. The committee is in the middle of the hearings, determined to hear every single person who wishes to give testimony to the committee. Individual members may have their own leanings, but there has been no thought as yet of a motion or a vote to take a decision. That would be premature, because, as you know, we haven't even yet heard from all the witnesses.

• 0915

Thanks for the point of order, Mr. Wood, and for the clarification. I think it's important that we do have that clarification.

The committee is still some time from a decision on this matter, because we're still taking testimony such as you're giving us today.

Please continue, sir.

Mr. Allan MacIsaac: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'm in the hands of the committee, and I don't disagree with the interpretation of that point of order. However, on that point, I would just like to refer you to Minutes of Proceedings, number 90, held Thursday, February 18, I believe it is, 1999. If you don't mind, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that the committee proceeded to the suspended motion by Elsie Wayne. It reads as follows:

That the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs recommend that the Merchant Navy Veterans be recognized as war veterans, that they receive prisoner of war benefits, that they receive a one time payment in lieu of benefits afforded to other veterans of World War II and that they be recognized as veterans on ceremonial days.

After debate, the question being put on the motion, it was agreed to.

The Chairman: Perhaps I can clarify that for you. It was agreed to bring that motion forward and make it active at the committee. That's what was agreed to: to entertain Mrs. Wayne's motion, duly made, which we all supported unanimously, to hold these special hearings after Bill C-61.

What was agreed to was to bring Mrs. Wayne's motion forward, to hold hearings and receive testimony on that, as we're doing today. But it's important that this not in any way be misunderstood as support for the goal of the motion. It was support to bring the motion forward and hold the hearings, which we're doing now. Okay?

Mr. Allan MacIsaac: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I won't spend any more time on that at this time.

Our association represents the largest majority of wartime merchant seamen still alive. Many are not members of any organization. In spite of our differences, we all hope for a satisfactory end to the 54 years of post-World War II discrimination against Canada's merchant seamen.

In the testimony I will comment briefly on Bill C-61 and offer a concise case history, as a member of a paramilitary disciplined merchant navy service, that will illustrate why we are war veterans and should have been so designated in 1945 and placed under the same legislation as our wartime military comrades who had access to the same benefits and reconstruction programs.

We had an obligation of service—to serve our country. It included signing articles, being sent to a training school, a manning pool, to gunnery training, or order to travel to a ship. We were disciplined by the merchant seamen's order, the judge advocate general, the navy, the military police, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and we sailed under admiralty orders. We could not simply leave the service.

We merit compensation for having been purposely excluded from post-war rehabilitation benefits given to our military comrades by a grateful government.

Bill C-84, in 1992, was exclusive, restrictive, and narrow. It contained some improvements, but it had far too many gaps. Bill C-61 offers corrections. It will finally recognize wartime merchant seamen and women as war veterans. We were purposely excluded from this designation.

We will be under the same legislation as our military comrades. We will be recognized as a service, and so will all our service time. We will have access to the same reduced benefits the military veterans receive. The government in 1993 admitted that we did not have the same access or the same benefits. The criteria will be the same for assessing them.

Such equality and recognition after more than half a century of exclusion and denial is fundamentally important. It includes a transition clause. It covers ships that should have been included previously. It recognizes prisoners of war who are captured ashore.

Bill C-61 is a money bill. It provides better assistance for prisoner of war spouses, but not enough. Gaps remain. It should include an amendment providing for full time-based pensions beyond the 30 months now provided for. Merchant navy prisoners of war were incarcerated for 50 months, on average.

• 0920

The bill does not include compensation for the government's exclusion, mistreatment, and neglect of us war veterans who were denied the rehabilitation benefits given to the military. Because of the government's purposeful actions, the merchant navy was denied the opportunity to take advantage of them to improve ourselves with government assistance and contribute even more to Canada's growth and development. Instead, we were relegated to second-class citizenship.

The government purposely neglected to include the wartime merchant seamen from becoming part of Canadian “leaders of business, professional, and public life for the years that lie ahead”. That was reserved for the military personnel, who got free and paid university education. Merchant seamen were dead-ended into vocational training for jobs at sea, where there were no jobs. Post-war unemployment was high. Most merchant seamen live below the poverty level. Merchant seamen and women did not have equal access to the same benefits as the military in the past half-century.

As well, the government owes us an outstanding debt. We paid income tax; the military did not. We had compulsory war savings. And they still have merchant seamen's unclaimed wages.

There is no reason for denying merchant seamen as war veterans. We were the fourth arm of the fighting services during World War II. The oft-quoted 1945 pamphlet by the Honourable Lionel Chevrier, Minister of Transport, mispresents: it fails to tell the entire story and ignores government documents and actions that refute his contentions regarding their supposed better conditions, pay, and a post-war need for them. The Honourable Mr. Mifflin repeats the latter, and adds that they could not include another 12,000 in the one million being rehabilitated. The number of merchant navy pension recipients was minuscule, and access was much more restrictive.

We were excluded from the Veterans Land Act, business and professional loans, rehabilitation, university education, civil service employment, veterans insurance, reinstatement in employment and other health benefits. Merchant seamen lost jobs to the military.

The brief notes how the Canadian Seamen's Union was recognized by the government's Brockington commission in 1948 as the legitimate bargaining agent for deep-sea seamen, but then was destroyed. The McCarthy era, the red-scare paranoia of the Gouzenko disclosures, and the opposition of the shipping companies to effective unionism killed the prospect of recognition and equal benefits.

A few of the Canadian Seamen's Union leaders were Communist Party members. The government colluded with shipping companies and international-led union leaders, the CLC and the TLC, and brought in the gangster and prison graduate Hal Banks of the Seafarers' International Union. He did not have to disclose his criminal record. He ensured privatization and an end to the effective and quite democratic Canadian Seamen's Union. He became Canada's sweetheart, but his brutal and dictatorial methods led the Norris commission to compare him to Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini. He fled to the United States rather than face jail. Merchant seamen are paying the price, through no fault of their own.

I joined the merchant service at 15, and I sailed on ships in war zones protected by naval warships. When I was 17 I tried to join the navy, but I was told by the recruiting captain that I was needed more in the merchant navy. When I returned to my ship, my captain told me that I could not leave because my articles committed me to staying. My shore leave was cancelled.

We took gunnery training from navy personnel and were assigned positions to man the guns when attacked. We taught them the handling of the ship's safety equipment.

After the war I was refused a land grant and jobs with the Canadian National Railways and Canada Post because I was not a veteran. I got what education I could at my own expense. I needed help, but none was available. My case was the rule, not the exception. Just think of how many others could have benefited from the government assistance given the military, and the even greater contribution they would have made to Canada's development.

The government clearly neglected and discriminated against wartime merchant seamen and women.

You will appreciate, Mr. Chairman, that some of our recommendations have already been corrected. I want to thank everybody on this committee for the excellent work they did in that regard.

• 0925

Our first recommendation is that the government study and pass Bill C-61 quickly because of its importance in finally recognizing wartime merchant seamen and women as war veterans, as a service, and recognizing all their service time and placing them under the same legislation as their military comrades, with the same criteria for accessing the diminished benefits.

Our second recommendation is that you acknowledge that the merchant navy veterans, who suffered the highest death rate of all the services—one in eight—were under an obligation to serve, which they did when they joined, and they served under government control and were subject to harsh discipline during the war.

Our third recommendation is that you include either new legislation or a cabinet decree providing full time-based pensions for merchant navy prisoners of war, since they were incarcerated, on average, 50 months and only 30 or 36 months are recognized.

Our fourth recommendation is that as they are war veterans, compensation ex gratia by cabinet decree be paid to wartime merchant seamen or their spouses in the amount of $20,000, with an additional $20,000 for merchant navy prisoners of war or their spouses, for the government's negligence and discrimination of exclusion from the post-war benefits granted their military comrades, and for their service to their country's war effort. There are precedents: interned Japanese Canadians; Inuit forcibly relocated; first nations mistreatment and discrimination; Hong Kong, Buchenwald, and Far East merchant navy prisoners of war.

Our fifth recommendation is that since they paid income tax during the war and their average age is 79, and the prisoners of war 89 years of age, if alive, and the average longevity is 76 and 81 years of age respectively for males and females, and since most live below the poverty line, they be given a tax-free existence for the rest of their lives.

Our sixth recommendation is that given their advanced age, the resumption of track two compensation discussions to correct this injustice, on which you have taken the initiative, continue as quickly as possible so that it is resolved before we are all dead.

Our seventh recommendation is that as compensation for excluding merchant seamen from the post-war paid university education for military veterans, you establish a Millennium 2000 university or college scholarship for children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren of wartime merchant seamen, as established for first nations military veterans and by the Prime Minister of Canada for other Canadians.

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to add a short verbal footnote to that.

The Chairman: Please do.

Mr. Allan MacIsaac: I think it may help the committee if they have somewhat of a picture of how I viewed the world when I was 15 years old, in 1942.

Many of my school chums who were just two or three years my senior were joining the army, navy, and air force, and they were going off to war. We were aware that nearly all Europe, including France, was occupied by our enemy, and the enemy was poised on the English Channel waiting to attack the United Kingdom. We were aware that there was hunger and a shortage of supplies. We knew that hundreds of merchant ships were being sunk and that there was a shortage of men. Our government of the day was advertising for people to join the services, including the merchant navy. The posters would say “You are needed,” and so would the newspapers and the radios.

We were concerned, and the war in the Pacific and Asia wasn't going too well for us either. It was my contention at that time that I should do what I could to serve this country that I love so much. You may wonder why a young person of 15 would want to leave a happy, loving family, but I practically ran away to join the merchant navy. I thought I was doing the right thing to help out our country.

I would ask the committee to maybe take some of these things into consideration, how people looked at our country at that particular time and how we thought that we were really needed.

I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I was appreciated during the war, although my only uniform was this pin. But after the war I was discarded. There were no educational opportunities, and there were no jobs. I was just left out there on my own, and so were many, many other people.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. MacIsaac.

Are the other people in the delegation each going to make some comments as well?

• 0930

Captain Tom Brooks (Deputy Master, Ottawa-Hull Division, Company of Master Mariners of Canada; Merchant Navy Coalition for Equality): Mr. Chairman, I'll handle it all for our team, and that will help to shorten the time.

The Chairman: You're going to make the additional comments, then?

Capt Tom Brooks: I'll make comments now. I'll read our paper. It will save time if the others don't speak.

The Chairman: Fine, thank you very much. Go ahead.

Capt Tom Brooks: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and your committee, for your kind invitation to our company to speak on the merchant navy request for compensation for lost opportunities.

My name is Tom Brooks, and I'm the deputy master of the Ottawa-Hull Division of the Company of Master Mariners of Canada.

With me is Captain Peter Ady, who represents our merchant navy war veterans. Captain Ady was torpedoed during the war while serving on the tanker Athel Duke. Captain Ady was only 16 years old at the time.

Also with me is Captain Miriam Van Roosmalen, who represents our present and future generations of master mariners, on whose behalf we want to ensure that the merchant navy war veterans will always receive equal veterans benefits and full recognition as a war service.

The company is a professional association of ship masters and senior nautical officers actively engaged in many aspects of the marine industry. The company is not affiliated with any government industry or union body. The company works closely with other marine associations to further the goal of all seafarers, the marine industry, and the professionalism of the merchant navy.

Presently we are working within the Merchant Navy Coalition for Equality to obtain equal access to equal veterans benefits; compensation for lost opportunities; and recognition of the merchant navy as a war service. We are also cooperating with other major veterans associations to achieve equality and compensation for merchant navy war veterans.

We view our participation in these negotiations as twofold: first, to ensure that all merchant navy war veterans receive the benefits and recognition they have earned; and secondly, to ensure that veterans policies and legislation will protect our present and future members when they may next be called upon to man another Canadian wartime fleet or to man ships supporting peacekeeping operations.

Several years ago, during our discussions with Veterans Affairs Canada, we agreed to split our benefits, compensation, and recognition packages into two tracks. Track one would deal with the least-cost legislative changes that are now generally incorporated in Bill C-61, and track two would deal with the issue of compensation for lost benefits. The company is anxious to start negotiations on track two as soon as possible and asks for your support.

Not long ago the Minister of Veterans Affairs stated, “Let me reiterate that they [Merchant Navy veterans] are eligible for the same benefits as veterans of the Armed Forces.” Merchant navy veterans dispute that statemen, because of the many omissions and deficiencies described in paragraph 2.9 of our brief—for example, gunnery training, travel, hospitalization, and so on. What the minister never says is that the merchant navy gets equal access to equal benefits. Equal access to equal benefits is what merchant navy veterans have been fighting for all these years.

A major value of Bill C-61 is recognition of more merchant navy seafaring time as merchant navy service. Presently, this service is only counted from the time a seafarer signs on a ship's articles of agreement until the time he or she signs off, and it therefore does not include all the service described in our brief.

• 0935

Other federal legislation recognizes that merchant navy veterans were in service while not formally on articles. The Public Service Superannuation Act and the public service superannuation regulations deem merchant navy service as “...continuous where the periods of such service are separated by not more than 30 days”.

This legislation recognizes that merchant navy seafarers could be off articles for varying periods during the six years they may have been at war, attending to shipboard maintenance and refit, travel commitments to and from a ship, and to such personal leaves as dental work, hospitalization, schooling and the taking of annual leave.

The present veterans legislation does not recognize these shipboard and personal needs, and the definition of service in Bill C-61 is designed to compensate for some of these omissions. For example, one of our local members lost several costly benefits, because of the restricted definition of service, when he tried to buy back wartime service under the act and regulations I've just mentioned.

When he retired in 1983, the difference between our calculation of service, compared to that of the government, meant the member lost about $1,400 a year in reduced pension benefits. This does not appear to be a lot of money, but spread over the 16 years he has been retired, he has lost around $22,400 and he will go on losing $1,400 a year for the rest of his life. Bill C-61 recognizes much of his service, but for him, as for many others, it is too late.

During the war, the government called the Merchant Navy virtually an arm of our fighting services, and instituted a massive publicity program through posters, radio programs and the media to encourage Canadians to join the merchant navy. Government enlistment offices also advised potential enlistees, who did not meet the military age and physical standards, to join the merchant navy.

The Canadian government, in a further effort to secure and retain seafarers, made an agreement with the Government of the United States to prohibit Canadians from crossing the border to join the much better U.S. merchant navy, which had better pay, ships, working and living conditions, and career opportunities. There is little doubt that Canadians who volunteered to join the Canadian merchant navy believed they were serving their country as valuable members of a wartime service.

The department has argued that at the end of the war, the government was faced with an immense task of demobilizing over one million enlisted men and women. It is agreed that the government was faced with this enormous task, but it would have been a simple matter to include those merchant navy volunteers who wished to go home and pick up their lives after the war. These few in number could not have been the reason for denying merchant navy veterans prompt demobilization, with full veterans' benefits. There had to be another reason.

Veterans Affairs has also stated in a fact sheet published on their website that:

Most of these [veterans' benefits] were not made available to merchant navy veterans because the government of the day thought the sizeable merchant marine that had participated in our war effort would continue to exist and their approximately 12,000 members would, therefore, have no need for demobilization benefits, which were designed to return over one million enlisted men and women to civilian careers.

That quote is typical of the government's attitude to merchant navy veterans. To paraphrase the government's apparent point of view: we know what is best for you, just trust us and you will not be sorry.

After the war, Canadians had a valuable short-term resource that could be used to pay down some of the war's debts—the Park Steamship company fleet. These wartime-built Park ships were based on the British-designed North Sands type, because its elementary design and ease of construction made it possible to build them quickly in the developing Canadian shipyards.

• 0940

These factors ensured almost instant obsolescence of these newly built Park ships the day the war ended. If Canadians were to receive any benefit from their huge investment in these ships, it was imperative that they continue to operate for at least the first few post-war years, when war-ravaged tonnage was scarce.

Once this post-war shipping boom was over, the Canadian flag fleet and its seafarers and the shipbuilding industry and its workforce would be nothing more than an impediment to protecting shrinking profits, in the face of increasing international competition.

It was therefore to the benefit of the government and the shipping companies to secure and temporarily keep available a ready source of Canadian crews. Many merchant navy war veterans believe there was a deliberate policy of cooperation—some would call it collusion or even treachery—between the government and the shipping companies, in depriving these veterans of many of the post-war rehabilitation benefits, so they might be retained in a dead-end industry until there was no further use for them. Some evidence of this policy may be found in Order in Council 3227 of 1945. The order in council states:

Such benefits should not be of a nature which would encourage Seamen to leave the industry at the end of the war to seek employment in other fields as the services of many skilled merchant seamen will be required if Canada is to maintain a Merchant Marine after the war.

Any person reading the above order, which is also described in a 1945 pamphlet that was just referred to by my colleague, would have linked the word “encourage” with “generous financial incentives, improved living and working conditions, and excellent future career possibilities in a modern post-war fleet”. It was in a very perverse way that Merchant Navy veterans were encouraged to remain in the industry.

To ensure that they would find it difficult to leave the industry and make the transition to civilian life, they were denied equal access to many of the benefits described in our brief. The lack of adequate benefits meant that after serving Canada as volunteers for periods of up to six years, they lost many of the post-war opportunities granted to military veterans and the opportunity to be promptly demobilized, so they could continue their education and be reintegrated into civilian life.

As proof of the effect of the loss of these opportunities, the department estimated in 1996 that up to 70% of merchant navy veterans required income-tested benefits, versus only 30% of military veterans. These merchant navy veterans are also disallowed from receiving equal income-tested benefits under the War Veterans Allowance Act. For example, the War Veterans Allowance Act provided military veterans with $500 million in benefits before the merchant navy veterans received their limited benefits in 1963, under the more restricted civilian legislation. This amount must be increased 6.48 times to bring it up to 1998 dollars, or $3.7 billion.

This clearly shows that although the merchant navy had access to some veterans benefits, it did not have equal access to equal benefits. The merchant navy received some additional benefits after the war, and in 1949, 1962, 1976, 1981, 1984 and 1992, these benefits were improved. This shows that certain previous governments occasionally had the compassion and courage to attempt to right some wrongs, instead of continually blaming the government of the day. Much is yet to be done by the present Canadian government.

We believe, on the basis of the limited comparison in our brief, the merchant navy claim for at least a lump sum $20,000 extraordinary payment is very modest. This request for an extraordinary payment is not based on the benefits that were potentially available to the military veterans, nor is it based on the benefits military veterans actually received. The calculations in the brief are simply to illustrate the vast differences in military versus merchant navy potential and actual benefits, to permit your committee, Parliament, and the Canadian people to judge for themselves.

• 0945

Merchant navy war veterans are not seeking retroactive benefits. This payment is simply a very modest token payment for lost opportunities that inhibited merchant navy veterans from making their transition from a wartime service to a rewarding civilian life.

The pressure for compensation gained increasing support in and around 1988, when merchant navy veterans realized that soon they would be too old to benefit sufficiently from improved legislated benefits. It is unfortunate that the subsequent improvements in merchant navy benefits that have dribbled down since the end of the war had not been made earlier. Had they been made earlier, we would not be here today trying to heal a festering sore. No one should be surprised by this request for compensation, and no one should be surprised if the aging merchant navy veterans apply upward pressure to increase the value of any outstanding compensatory proposal as they get older. Bill C-61 is only one of the steps the merchant navy can use to obtain current parity with their military comrades. With respect to veterans benefits and recognition, it does nothing for the past lost opportunities.

Walter S. Woods, in his history of the re-establishment of World War II veterans, states in his conclusion:

Perhaps the greatest single factor in the success of Canada's rehabilitation programme... was the attitude in which the problem was approached. This time is was not a question of “How little can we get away with? but, How much do we owe?”

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That brings my notes to a conclusion. I want to thank you for this opportunity to describe our views of our association of master mariners on the subject of compensation for merchant navy war veterans.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Brooks and Mr. MacIssac, and your colleagues as well. So that's the full submission of the delegation then. We appreciate it.

We'll go to questions. We have an hour, or perhaps slightly more than an hour, for questions. We do have a motion that Mr. Laurin submitted last meeting, which we'll deal with following the questioning.

It's approximately 10.50, so we'll have time for a first round of ten-minute questions. We'll start with the opposition side.

Some of you are new to the committee and come to the government side, the majority side. There's a set of rules we follow here, and it's my job to make sure they're followed. And there's a time schedule. The first round calls for ten minutes of questions by members. We welcome back to the committee Mr. Goldring, from the Reform Party, who had a little difficulty, I understand, with his leg and is walking with a patriotic cane with a Canadian flag on it. We'll recommend that to Mr. Bouchard in Quebec as well. I'm not sure he'll take the advice.

Mr. Goldring, starting with you for ten minutes.

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

Thank you, Captain Brooks, for your presentation.

I want to mention here one person who is missing from this room, who I'm sure would be here if he could; this is Gordon Olmstead, who has been long been a champion of the rights of the merchant navy concerns too. I wish for him peace and contentment in his times right now in his failing health. He's a very deserving gentleman.

I want to first of all talk about this and then ask some questions on it, because I think it's worth emphasizing for Canadians, to remind them, that there were some 72 ships that went down and were lost. Some of these ships were armed ships. They were in a theatre of war. Some 12,000 merchant navy persons served. Some 2,000 perished, one of the highest levels of any of the services for casualties and for deaths.

• 0950

I have a question that's related to this on the number of voyages on which the average merchant navy person served. Could you comment? Were most of them multiple voyages? Do you have any type of a feeling on how many voyages the average merchant navy person served?

Capt Tom Brooks: Thank you, Mr. Goldring.

During the war they had three sets of agreements they signed. One was a two-year agreement where a voyage could last two years, and the other was a voyage trip agreement, which meant that every time it got back to Canada you could pay off. If you signed the two-year agreement, you might have only made three trips during the war, whereas if you signed the voyage agreement, and then you were running down to the Caribbean and bringing oil up the eastern seaboard, you might have made 20 to 30 trips. So it's very difficult to answer that question.

Mr. Peter Goldring: So is it fair to say statistically that of the merchant navy veterans who did serve, the majority were multiple voyages?

Capt Tom Brooks: I'd say yes to that question.

Mr. Peter Goldring: And with this in mind, I'm going to make the comment that the types of voyages that were served were in enemy waters; they were in peril at all times. If we draw a comparison to the other militaries, some might serve in areas that were not directly in the theatre of war, whereas the merchant navy were constantly in the major theatre of war running convoys. So it was a very highly hazardous method of service.

Capt Tom Brooks: That's correct. A new merchant navy seafarer could join the ship in Halifax and two or three hours later be out in the war zone. So you just got outside of the harbour. All the people we're dealing with here, the veterans, served on home trade and foreign voyages, so they'd all be included. As soon as you signed on that ship and left port, you were in a war zone.

Mr. Peter Goldring: So the comments that have been made by others comparing this service to the other services is bang on, that it certainly was a hazardous form of service, perhaps even more so than other forms of service in World War II—unequivocally, though, equally at least.

Capt Tom Brooks: Yes.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I'd like to comment on some of the statistics you have in your brief, talk about some of the benefits, because I really believe that what we're talking about here is a form of compensation for the inequality of benefits received from the war right through to this date. This is the injustice you see, and this is what you wish the compensation for: the lack of the benefits that gave the merchant navy people less opportunity for a start in the after-war period of time. I want to talk about some of these specifically.

For example, with university training, you're specifically speaking about the military veterans, but would you not agree that an item such as university training is not just simply the dollars and cents that are involved with the cost of the education at the time, but also that education itself impacts your family for generations? In other words, I would think that it would be common knowledge, or statistically able to be proven, that for a university-educated working person, his next generation and next generation also have better opportunities. This is maybe because of a higher level of income from the initial training it equates to, but the benefits go for several generations. That would be very difficult to calculate, but would you agree that directly impacts generation after generation, and from the war until this date, several generations?

Capt Tom Brooks: Most certainly. We refer to that particular item and some of the others as a gift that keeps on giving.

Mr. Peter Goldring: That's a very apt way of putting it.

Looking at some of these other items on here, when we're talking about land settlement grants, what are the land settlement grants, in short? Could you explain what the other services would get for a land settlement grant? What type of grant is this?

• 0955

Capt Tom Brooks: The land settlement grant permitted somebody to get money to buy a farm, a loan to get some furniture and machinery and cattle. It also permitted a fisherman to buy a boat. Those were basically the types of major items.

Now, there were other benefits attached to that land settlement grant as well. The main one was to be able to get a farm or get a fishing boat.

Mr. Peter Goldring: These were outright grants, then.

Capt Tom Brooks: Some were grants and others were as loans, where you had to pay over a period of time.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Here again, the impact on this is generation after generation, that the initial recipient of these grants has a powerful advantage over somebody who gets nothing, and this will equate to quality of family lifestyle generationally as well, as people pass on ownership of farms and other possessions to the next generation and the next generation. Are these figures here taking fully into account the effect of this going generation after generation?

Capt Tom Brooks: No, they don't. It would be too difficult to try to work out something like that. It was hard enough with the records we have today to come up with this limited comparison. But to try to figure out how much benefit would be incurred by future generations from some of these benefits, I mean, it would take an actuary or a person like that to figure it out or even to come to an estimate.

Mr. Peter Goldring: So it would be fair to say then that these are minimal guesstimations. It could go on quite extensively from here if it was possible to somehow calculate the benefit from fifty years of having the advantage of starting out with substantial grants. This would be very minimal.

Capt Tom Brooks: It is. It's just the very basic, the very start. It doesn't take anything else into consideration. Some of our members feel they should be asking for over $100,000 for benefits. Even at that, maybe in a case of land settlement and university training it might be small.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I am looking at this other one here, business and professional grants $1,800. Coming from a small-business background, I know I didn't have anything and it was extremely difficult getting established. That prevents others from starting in business, if they don't have the advantage of some help to get going. Would you agree that in business in professional grants once again we're talking here about absolute bare minimal benefit? Who knows, maybe Michael McCain had a start. I'm using that as an example of how a business can start small. You're looking at $1,800 here, but what if somebody were able to build a powerful business because they had the advantage of having an $1,800 business grant to start. So this again is at the very minimal end of it.

Capt Tom Brooks: Yes, the very minimum.

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

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I will now give the floor to Mr. Laurin of the Bloc Québécois for ten minutes.

Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): I would first like to ask a technical question.

Mr. MacIsaac said in his statement:

3) that you include either new legislation or a cabinet decree providing full-time based pensions for MN POWs since they were incarcerated on average 50 months and only 30 (or 36) is recognized;

Can you remind me of why the difference between the two is not granted?

[English]

Mr. Allan MacIsaac: The average that the merchant navy prisoners of war served was 50 months. I think that was attributed to the fact that they were affected by the immediate start of the war. The first day war was declared there was a merchant ship sunk, and they were taken prisoner. Where the rest of the military on...

• 1000

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Excuse me, Mr. MacIsaac. I am not asking you to justify the claim. You have already done that quite well. You have stated that the average time incarceration is 50 months, but that only 30 or 36 months are recognized. I would like you to explain how the difference has occurred and to tell me why the 14 or 20 month difference is not recognized.

[English]

Mr. Allan MacIsaac: Yes. As far as I know, sir, that was a figure reached by Veterans Affairs, I gather in conjunction with the Royal Canadian Legion. It was based on the length of time that was served by the uniformed military. It didn't take into consideration the merchant navy, who had considerably longer periods of time under incarceration.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Chairman, I believe that the briefs that have been presented to us are well documented and that they reflect the reality, and I support everything that these briefs tell us. I think that we have not been quite fair to the merchant seamen in the past, but I would like to share a thought with you. I am seeking a solution that will please everybody, but I realize that this is not easy.

Although I admit that, historically, we have perhaps been unfair to the merchant seamen, there is a problem. How are we going to go about rectifying the errors of the past? In the past, we were unfair not only to merchant seamen, but also to a host of other people.

I am a teacher, and I was the president of the teachers' union. I remember negotiating working conditions for young teachers who earned $700 or $800 par year in a small country school, who taught three or four levels at the same time and who, in addition, had to use their own salaries for wood to heat the school in the winter. What would happen if those teachers were to ask for compensation today because today's teachers are so much better paid? We all recognize that those people were treated poorly and insufficiently appreciated, and that society treated them very, very unfairly.

My family had a low income, but I, nevertheless, was able to go to school. You are asking for special millennium scholarships for your grand-children and great-grand-children. I had classmates in primary school who could not go to university because they did not have enough money. Some of them succeeded, I don't know how, to get some government scholarships. There was no official or regular system at the time, but some MPs succeeded in getting some funds to help certain needy students. Others, who weren't aware of this, were deprived. Many people were unable to go to university because they came from large families and did not have enough money, while others succeeded.

Those people might be entitled to say to the government today: "You gave grants to a certain number of students for university education, and you did not do it in my case. Therefore, I should be compensated today." This is the sort of thing that I have difficulty reconciling at the present time. If the present generation wished to right all the wrongs of the past, we would be deeply indebting our children.

• 1005

In the province of Quebec, the government is currently reviewing the case of the Duplessis children. It's dreadful how those people were treated by society. Even though we may recognize today that such things happened, can we right the wrongs of the past? Had we been there to make the decisions, would the decisions have been different? For example, if after the war in 1945, we had awarded the same benefits to merchant seamen as to veterans, would everyone have received the same level of benefits or would the benefits have been reduced because more people would have been entitled to receive them? I assume that the government must have implemented measures on the basis of a certain financial envelope, and that it had a certain amount of money. If it had decided to compensate a greater number of people, would it have been able to give as much to each person? I say "as much" in quotations, because I don't think that anyone made their fortune with that.

This is the type of question that I'm asking myself. I am very sympathetic to your claims, and I do believe that those people should have been treated, at the time, as they are now asking. However, I wonder how we are going to satisfy those people, and all the others to whom society has been less than generous in the past. This is a somewhat philosophical or humanitarian issue. By taking steps today to right the wrongs of the past, perhaps I am myself being unfair to others who would deserve compensation for their past treatment, and whom we cannot compensate.

I know that you are not the advocates of widows and orphans and all those who have been mistreated. You are pleading your case. In your position, I would do the same. However, these are considerations that, personally, I cannot ignore in arriving at a conclusion. Please don't believe that I am opposed to your claims. That is not it at all. I am doing some heart-searching, and I would ask for your comments so that you can help me in my thinking and to develop, along with my committee colleagues, recommendations that might satisfy everyone.

I would like you to speak to these comments.

[English]

The Chairman: In welcoming you to respond to Mr. Laurin, I just indicate you have about a minute and a half. He had a fairly long reflection. It was very interesting. So if you could give us a—

Mr. René Laurin: I have more than ten minutes?

The Chairman: No. Ten minutes.

So you have a little over a minute to give some thoughts and reflections to Mr. Laurin. Mr. MacIsaac.

Mr. Allan MacIsaac: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Sorry, I'm not used to such long questions, but I'm sure you're correct that many people suffered economically and in other ways during the war.

I think there's a little difference in the case we're trying to present here today. It's that we are asking for benefits that were given to other veterans. Of course if there were other schoolteachers who got benefits that you didn't get because of the war problem, then surely you would have a good grievance. And we'd probably be here supporting you when you presented. But today we're presenting the case for merchant seamen, which has been going on for nearly 55 years. Once again I will tell you that we are doing it because we know we were discriminated against. Some veterans got benefits that we were denied, and that's the case we're making today.

I think Captain Brooks may have further comments on that.

The Chairman: Just briefly, Mr. Brooks, because the time is up.

Capt Tom Brooks: Yes, very briefly.

The merchant navy veterans are asking for the same benefits the military got. These people left their homes, maybe from school. They spent up to six years at war, some of them in a prison camp all the time. Their life was broken for that full period, and that's what we're asking compensation for. They were in a war zone all the time, or virtually all the time.

• 1010

I can't see how other people could use that argument for other purposes. They were at war, six years away from home. You're talking about a kid who's about 25 now, and not very interested in going back to university. For him it might be all gone.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Brooks.

I'm moving to the other side of the table now, to the government side.

Colleagues, you can appreciate that as witnesses this is a very complex issue and it's certainly very emotional for the witnesses. That obviously generates certain emotions in us too, as Canadians. I just want to encourage all colleagues to try to maybe be a little more succinct with our questions and phrase them for the witnesses and allow some time for an exchange of views.

Now I go to the Parliamentary Secretary for Veterans Affairs, Bob Wood, for ten minutes. Mr. Wood.

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

Mr. MacIsaac and Mr. Brooks, when the members of the Royal Canadian Legion were before this committee, they suggested that if we were to go back and compensate all the members of the merchant navy who did not have access to the post-war benefits... They were very, very cautious, but they seemed to suggest, if I'm right, that if we did that, they might have to revisit all the other cases where military veterans, for whatever reason, did not take advantage of these programs.

Now, if they pursued this, you can understand that the government could be faced with millions and possibly billions of dollars in demands for post-war opportunities not taken advantage of by all veterans. As a government, I think we have to think in these global terms. These numbers really worry me.

I just wonder, what is your opinion of the Legion's position?

Mr. Allan MacIsaac: The Royal Canadian Legion has come a long way over the years. We were pleased that in their last brief they recommended that the merchant navy veterans be entitled to compensation.

Their comments showing their concern that maybe other veterans would be asking for the same benefits if benefits were allowed to us just doesn't make any sense to me. We're not asking for retroactive benefits. We're saying that we want benefits that were allowed to other veterans that we weren't able to take advantage of because we weren't classified as veterans and we didn't qualify. If we had a decree allowing us those benefits, allowing the mistake to be corrected, it wouldn't apply to people who had the opportunity to take advantage of these benefits to now ask them to be retroactive.

I sit as a referee with the Unemployment Insurance Commission, and I have been been doing it for 23 years. If you don't make application for your unemployment insurance benefits, you don't get them. And it's not retroactive. It doesn't apply to everyone later on. In this case, it certainly wouldn't apply to the military.

Mr. Bob Wood: Thank you.

Mr. MacIsaac and Mr. Brooks, just carrying on that line of thinking, you have taken great pains to state that your recommendation for a lump-sum payment, as you mentioned and Mr. Brooks mentioned, is related to opportunities lost rather than for benefits that might have been available. I take it, sir, that this is your solution of getting around the difficult problem we're having of the fact that tens of thousands, as I just said, of military veterans never took advantage of many of the post-war programs.

Is your argument that the military people had the opportunity to apply but did not, so that excludes them from the merchant navy claim? I think it is. Sir, if this is the case, I understand the argument, but it still does not address the fact that not everyone took advantage of the programs. Some only used them partially, and maybe some not at all. Sir, could it not be argued that had merchant navy veterans been eligible for these programs they would have participated in similar numbers? Your proposal—correct me if I'm wrong—implies that they all would have utilized the programs, so they all deserve compensation. Is that truly a valid assumption?

• 1015

Mr. Allan MacIsaac: No, I don't think so, Mr. Wood. Our suggested $20,000 and $40,000 payments were based on a number of criteria.

For instance, I served for three years of the war, and in that period there were only about three or four weeks during which I didn't sail. Every time I sailed I was in dangerous waters. When I tried to return to civilian life, I was denied a land grant. I was denied job opportunities because I wasn't a veteran. But probably most important to me, I was denied an education. Now, although I came through the war without a scratch, being denied that education was really a disability. It was a handicap, and it probably affected me as much as somebody who was seriously injured during the war. I was never in a position to compete with my peers who were able to take advantage of the education. I'm talking about my military peers in the army, navy, or air force. I didn't have an opportunity to take advantage of those benefits, but the military did.

The $20,000 and $40,000 payments are based on all those considerations. We think they should apply to all our members. They were denied not only education, but also a multitude of other things.

The Chairman: I'm not sure that Mr. MacIsaac answered your question as I understood it. Do you want to pursue—

Mr. Bob Wood: I think Mr. Brooks wants to say something.

The Chairman: Mr. Brooks.

Capt Tom Brooks: Thank you.

We're not saying that we want every benefit they got. And you're quite right, if the benefits had been available to the merchant seamen at the time, I don't know what percentage would have taken advantage of the programs. We're saying that there are cases strong enough, based on what we have, where we're only asking for $20,000. If we were to take all the numbers, the percentages and everything, most likely we would get a lot more. We feel we would. The $20,000 has nothing to do with the 13%.

Now, military people got counselling service during the war and afterwards. The merchant navy never got it. Many merchant navy veterans didn't even know about the benefits they had coming. In 1943 the military trained special people and sent them overseas. They were kept up to date on all the programs they were developing for the military. On discharge a veteran filled out a form, which was to kind of declare what he wanted to do. Counselling commenced before discharge and continued throughout rehabilitation. All three branches appointed officers to advise and counsel them. Counsellors were stationed at every discharge centre. Follow-up consultations were permitted. The Merchant Navy never got any of that.

I find it hard to believe some of the percentages I've heard about military veterans who never took advantage or were the only ones who took advantage. I would personally like to see the numbers, and I'd like to compare them with the veterans of the merchant navy.

Mr. Bob Wood: I think, and you know, sirs, that when caring for our veterans, Canadians are especially concerned that those in greatest need receive the most attention. For this reason I think many of the programs are means tested so that those at the lowest income levels receive the greatest benefit. Now, with this proposal of lump sum payments, is this not somehow unfair to those merchant seamen who are in greatest need? Is the opposite not true, that maybe some merchant seamen who don't really need the money would potentially be getting a $20,000 windfall? What I'm asking, sirs, is have you ever considered dividing a compensation package so that it is distributed to those seamen and spouses most in need?

Mr. Allan MacIsaac: Perhaps I could just comment for a minute, Mr. Wood, on your first question, about the percentage of the military who took advantage of the various benefits.

The Chairman: I'd have to ask you to stick to this latter question, because we're getting short of time.

• 1020

Mr. Allan MacIsaac: Okay. With regard to the people in need, the accumulation of the benefits we're asking for took place over a period of nearly 55 years, and we don't think there should be a means test at this particular time. I think that all the merchant seamen are entitled to that token payment we're asking for.

The Chairman: Mr. Brooks.

Capt Tom Brooks: I don't think our members would describe it as a windfall. They think they've earned it. It has nothing to do with the state of their finances today. It's a token payment for lost opportunities, and it's minimal.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Bob Wood: Do I have time for one quick question?

The Chairman: You're out of time. I'll try to come back in the second round.

Now we go to Mr. Stoffer of the NDP for ten minutes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I must say that this is a great committee when the NDP gets ten minutes to ask a question instead of five.

First of all, I want to apologize for not being here at the beginning. My colleague Elsie and I were at the prayer breakfast this morning speaking to Ms. Kim Phuc. She's the Vietnamese woman who appeared in that photograph running away from the napalm attack. It was quite interesting to hear her speak. So we apologize for not being here earlier today.

I want to thank you very much for your presentations. I'm substituting today for Mr. Gordon Earle, our defence critic, who's dealing with the situation over in Kosovo right now. So I send his congratulations to you as well for your presentations.

I just want to become a little bit reflective. You mentioned that you were in combat and you mentioned that you had been torpedoed. I just want to say that your efforts were not in vain. For example, last week was the 55th anniversary of the liberation by Canadians of a city in my country of birth, Holland, called Westerbork. The last time I spoke to the merchant seamen when they made presentations here, I mentioned that my father and mother were rescued by Canadians. And since I was born in Holland, I just wanted to let you know that you're looking at a product of your efforts. If it weren't for the efforts of the Canadian government and the Canadian soldiers, the men and women, I wouldn't be here today, and neither would my parents. I spoke to my father last night, and he just wanted to say thank you very much for your efforts.

Last year the Canadian government gave $20 million Canadian, or $13 million U.S., to the Ethyl Corporation of the United States for a dispute we had over MMT, which is the manganese additive in gasoline. We didn't even take it all the way through the court system; we just settled out of court and gave them $20 million. Yet you folks fight year after year after year for a measly $20,000 per remaining veteran. It just boggles the mind that the government of the day can be this cruel and this insane about it. If they want to be generous and have a great big presentation and present you with a cheque, you'd think it would be the right thing to do politically, let alone morally.

I have a couple of questions. Has there ever been a list made up showing where the remaining members of the merchant navy are located in Canada? I come from the Port of Halifax, by the way, and I know there's a fair number of them in the Maritimes. But is there a list of where the remaining members are? Secondly, if all your lobbying efforts fail in terms of coming to the committee and to the government, are you thinking of possible legal action against the government?

Mr. Allan MacIsaac: From the records of the people who are members of the Canadian Merchant Navy Veterans Association, as far as we can tell, there are over 400 members in British Columbia, over 400 in Ontario, and over 400 in the maritime provinces. I'm sorry I can't break it down any closer than that.

With regard to whether or not we're considering court action, we've already applied to the court challenges program. We've pretty well exhausted that procedure. We were thinking of charging the government with discrimination, but there was some bar there when the Charter of Rights came into effect. We found out that before the charter came into effect, it wasn't a crime to discriminate. So that kind of stopped us from going in that direction. But we're thinking of applying to the United Nations.

• 1025

Mr. Peter Stoffer: My other question is for Captain Miriam Van Roosmalen—a good Dutch name, by the way. You're obviously not a person in her gentle years, but you're in the association now and you've obviously been hearing this since you've been associated with it. It must be extremely frustrating for you to have to hear this while you're trying to help and defend our elders, in terms of the merchant marines, and trying to get fair and decent compensation for what they so rightfully deserve. I would just like your perspective on it, first of all as a woman, and then as a younger person in this regard.

Captain Miriam Van Roosmalen (Director, Ottawa—Hull Division, Company of Master Mariners of Canada; Merchant Navy Coalition for Equality): It is something that's been going on for a number of years. The merchant navy veterans have been looking for recognition for the services they have provided to this country for about 55 years.

I'm here to represent the future as well, as a matter of fact. As a mariner, I could be put in the same position the merchant navy was put into 55 years ago. So there are two aspects to why I feel so strongly for this group of people.

I think what we're mainly talking about here is recognition there was no choice for these people who were asked to serve their country. They volunteered to serve their country, and there were no choices for them after the war ended. That's a very difficult position to be put in, whereas I've been very lucky. I've been afforded many choices in order to advance my career at sea as a mariner. So there are a number of reasons why I wanted to support this cause.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: This is the 250th anniversary of the founding of Halifax by Edward Cornwallis. I personally wish to invite all of you and all of your associates and families to come to beautiful Nova Scotia in July for the great celebrations, and relive again a lot of those memories you must have from the war period.

Again, thank you for your efforts. Good luck, and God bless every one of you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Stoffer, for a great commercial for a great city and a great province. I hope all of us can—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I forgot one very important thing. I publicly want to welcome Mrs. Longfield back to the House of Commons and committee after the scare she put us all through. It's a blessing to see you here, Mrs. Longfield. All the best to you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Stoffer. We're certainly glad to have our colleague back and looking so well.

Now we'll go to Mrs. Wayne for the Progressive Conservative Party for ten minutes.

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

First of all, I want to welcome Muriel MacDonald, this little lady sitting here with the grey hair. This little lady has worked extremely hard. I remember when I first came to the Hill in 1993, she came to visit me quite often with representatives. Every time we're at a meeting on the merchant navy, Muriel is there. So Muriel, you deserve a heck of a lot of credit, I have to tell you, and I'm not sure you get all of it. We thank you for all your hard work.

Could you tell me, Mr. Brooks or Mr. MacIsaac, how many members you have? You said there are about 1,600 right now. Is that the number or is it close to 2,000 that you still have living?

Mr. Allan MacIsaac: As far as we can calculate, from information from the archives, Transport Canada, Veterans Affairs and our own associations, there are about 2,000 veterans. We estimate there are probably between 600 and 1,000 spouses.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I think it was back in 1992, when Gerry Merrithew brought in what they called the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, and $100 million was put into the account for the merchant navy.

You'll recall, Mr. Chairman, when Mr. Mifflin came before this committee, I asked him where the money was, and it's down to $88 million. There is money somewhere, and it's supposed to still be there, to more than compensate them. They don't even need half of it, if you look at the numbers. Yet everybody tells me they can't find the $88 million. It was put in that account for the merchant navy men—$100 million. It went down to $88 million and we're still trying to find out where the $88 million went. We have to find it—we really and truly do. They don't even need half of it.

• 1030

So we don't have to talk about whether we have the money or not. That money is somewhere, and surely to God we didn't take their money out to retire the debt too. I pray to God we didn't.

There's a gentleman also here with us today from whom I received a report. That's Willis Marsolais, who is sitting right there with a little white jacket on. When he was 14 years old he left Halifax to go to London, England. When they were coming back to get more of what was needed for our troops, they were circled by the Germans.

The Germans took over their boat and shot that man in the leg—he was 14 years old. Do you know what they did with him? They put him on the German boat and threw him down a hole and into a ballast of salt, with his leg still bleeding. He was there for four days. When they took him off the boat when they got to Germany and made him a prisoner of war, they told him, “You're in espionage and we're going to shoot you”. Mother of God, what that man went through, and the story of what that man lived. He was there until he was 17 years old, as a prisoner of war.

When you read that, there is no way one of us, on either side of this House, would ever say no to compensation to merchant navy men. I have to tell you, because I know you all have hearts. Mother of God, there isn't anyone who could have gone through a worse hell than that man went through. It bothers me; it tugs at my heart.

I know, Bob, you had some concerns about the other people who might come forward. But I'm saying to you we have now recognized them as the fourth arm of the armed forces. We did that when we brought in the bill. England recognized them right in 1945, and the United States recognized them also. They gave them an insurance policy; that's how they did it.

They've all come together—the coalition, the other group that was here before you. My understanding is they're all united. There is no more dissension within the ranks. Every one of us sitting around this table has an obligation to make sure these men are compensated. If it's $20,000...

I guess there was a package, Mr. MacIsaac, that came forward. We received that package from one of the presenters before who said if they made one trip, it would be so and so; if they made two trips, it would be a certain amount. I don't know whether you and Captain Brooks have looked at that compensation package or not, and how you feel about that.

Mr. Allan MacIsaac: Thank you, Mrs. Wayne. As usual, you're right on the mark. I appreciate you bringing the committee's attention to Muriel MacDonald. Without her, we just couldn't carry on.

With regard to the pro-rated benefit that has been suggested by some merchant seamen, we've looked at that very carefully. We know it has some merit. We know the uniformed military had a pro-rated system when they dealt with their benefits.

Taking into consideration our overall picture, and the fact that we're only asking for a token payment of $20,000—I think everybody appreciates now that we could well calculate something up to $100,000, and $20,000 is just a token payment—we're suggesting that's the way it should be handled.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I won't take any more time. We have the money; we just have to find out what in the name of God we did with the $88 million. We had better find out very soon, because we certainly don't want it spent anywhere else. We have enough, and we'll still have over $40,000 in the bank to continue on for the merchant navy, once we've given them their compensation. Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Wayne. I appreciate your comments.

Before starting a second round of questions, I would just like to share something with our colleagues on the committee who may not be aware of it.

• 1035

Unfortunately, one of the problems we've dealt with at the committee is we haven't had all the key players from the merchant marine on the same page. Last week there was a flurry of faxes to my office. I won't name the principals involved, but a person who we hope will appear and was scheduled to appear indicated he wasn't going to appear. There was a flurry of faxes like you wouldn't believe back and forth to my office. Was he going to appear? Was he not? One minute he was; the next minute he wasn't.

Now the individual's saying he would like to appear, but only at a certain time and for a certain period of time. As chair of this committee, I have to run the committee within the rules and be fair to all colleagues on the committee from all parties. I've tried my best to do that. We certainly want to be fair to the merchant mariners, to hear every person who has any possible testimony they wish to give to this committee before we make our decision.

There was a misunderstanding earlier, Mrs. Wayne, before you and Mr. Stoffer were able to join us. I understand why you were delayed, for a very good reason. There was a misunderstanding that there had been a decision taken unanimously to offer compensation. Referring to your motion, I clarified for Mr. MacIsaac and the delegation that what was agreed to at that time unanimously was to bring your motion forward and to hold the hearings.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: That's right.

The Chairman: But we're a long way from a final decision on the matter. So I just offer these comments by way of clarification. As an elected person, in my 13-year municipal career I found it's much easier when you have a united group of witnesses feeling the same way on an issue. Unfortunately, although I wish that were the case here, it really so far isn't. I hope we can perhaps come to that consensus from the various witnesses who come to us. I just share with you that as late as last week there was a flurry of faxes—my machine nearly broke—about whether we were going to have certain witnesses and under what conditions and so on.

I'll endeavour as the chair to have those people here, but they cannot be allowed to dictate the date and how much time they will have. Most of you have not asked for that unfair consideration. I have to treat you all fairly. So I just share that with the colleagues and with the witnesses, that there has been some, if you want to call it that, internal dissension, which makes it a little difficult for us as MPs to deal with it. I hope we can come to the end of that by the time we've heard all the witnesses. So I just share that.

Mrs. Wayne.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I received a couple of phone calls on that. I think the two groups have come together. They've had more discussions and they've resolved a lot of differences.

The Chairman: Yes, right. Okay.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: There is one person who I think probably deserves an apology, that other gentleman who was supposed to be here, because no one should ever criticize that man. He's always trying to do what's best for everyone. I think maybe that's been resolved as well.

The Chairman: Yes, okay. I was certainly not offering it as any great criticism, other than just to share with you some of the difficulties we have as members of the committee when we see less than a united voice coming to us. Anyway, we'll let that unfold over time.

I want to start the second round of questions now. It's a five-minute round. We start again with the official opposition, Mr. Goldring, and then we go to the government side, and then the opposition side and so on, as time allows.

We'll have to end this questioning about 10.55. I'm informed there will likely be a half-hour bell at 11 o'clock for members. It's possible, not certain yet. But we can carry on questioning until about 10.55, or possibly a little longer if members can stay. Then I'm certainly going to deal with Mr. Laurin's motion before we adjourn. Okay?

So starting with Mr. Goldring, we'll have a second five-minute round. Mr. Goldring.

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

I want to emphasize this, and talk about it. It is not considered a windfall. What we're talking about here is compensation, fair and just compensation, for years of denial of equality. I think it's worth emphasizing this so we're just crystal-clear on it. This situation has evolved from the Government of Canada imposing different standards on different services. This, in my mind, is the responsibility of the government to correct.

• 1040

There have been years since the war to this date calculated here—and we can't come to an exact number because of the complexities of it—but the claim here is for compensation for all of those years that the merchant navy veterans have been at a disadvantage economically with any other veterans of the other three services. I want to make this very clear, and I'd like your comments on it, Mr. MacIsaac. Could you comment on that, please?

Mr. Allan MacIsaac: Yes, you're quite right, sir, and I'm pleased to meet you, after our many telephone calls. It's good to see you here.

We've calculated this token benefit of $20,000 for the merchant navy veterans and $40,000 for the merchant navy prisoners of war. For the prisoners of war, it could be 60 years, if you're looking at their five years of incarceration, and we've come up with this figure that I think everybody agrees on. I haven't heard anyone yet disagree, that it's not just a token payment.

We could calculate for each individual what they actually lost, or what it would cost the government to pay each individual if they took advantage of those opportunities, and we could come up with an amount in excess of $100,000. Now, what we're suggesting is a token payment, and it should apply to everyone—everyone who signed on articles and was prepared to go into dangerous waters.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Would it be fair to say that perhaps “token” is the wrong word or the wrong description, but that this is viewed by the merchant navy veterans themselves as a necessary catch-up compensation, indication from the government that a wrong has been done? Maybe I'm not finding the right word for it, and I don't think “token” really is the right word for it, because it's perceived by the merchant navy veterans as a very, very serious request for this wrong to be corrected.

Mr. Allan MacIsaac: It's interesting, sir, when we look at the government's own figures, and they say there's 75% of the merchant seamen getting some benefits or other. Now, what they are talking about is means-tested benefits. There are a lot of us who are below the poverty line. It must have something to do with the fact that we were denied jobs and we were denied education and those other benefits.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Would it be fair to say that we should stay focused on the issue, that we're focusing on the merchant navy concerns? You believe they have a fair and just claim here for compensation, that it's not fair to put in other elements and be concerned about who else will be claiming for what in the future. That's irrelevant to the situation here. What is on the table in front of us here is a wrong that has been done to the merchant navy veterans, and we should remain focused on that and attempt to correct the situation.

Mr. Allan MacIsaac: Yes, sir. As my friend Mr. Chadderton would say, you're comparing apples and oranges. We should deal with the comparison between the merchant navy veterans and the army, navy, and air force.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Goldring.

Now we go, as I indicated, to the government side for five minutes. Two speakers indicated interest, Mr. O'Reilly and then Mr. Bertrand.

Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much for appearing before us.

My concern is with the timing of the proposed compensation. It's 55 years later, and the average age is 79. It seems like a great injustice. I tried to analyse the various witnesses who have come before us, and the Royal Canadian Legion appears to want to take a lead in the recognition of this. Yet I was informed that the Legion didn't allow merchant mariners or the merchant navy to be members until 1992. I wondered if that is correct.

Mr. Allan MacIsaac: If I could answer that right now, I don't think that's entirely correct. I believe the Dominion Command of the Royal Canadian Legion allowed merchant navy members to join their organization very early, but some branches had their own autonomy and they didn't allow you in.

• 1045

I suppose there is a question to ask to the Legion Dominion Command: If their branches weren't allowing you in, were they really enforcing their own regulations? The fact of the matter is, there were merchant seamen who couldn't join the legion because of the attitude of that particular branch.

Mr. John O'Reilly: Thank you for clearing that up.

The other point I have is that there seem to be so many organizations representing or claiming to represent the merchant navy. I'm not sure how many there are, how many actually represent the navy, and what role they're playing. I find that it causes me to analyse exactly what it is that has held up this compensation, and the lack of a spearhead, I suppose, with someone actually running it. Was it because the merchant mariners allowed the union to come in, and Hal Banks? Was it because the Legions denied membership? Was it because of government? Was it because of the division in the organizations that claimed to be representing... How do we get an answer to those various things, and what are your comments on that?

Mr. Allan MacIsaac: I'm not sure that I understand your question, sir, but let me take a crack at it.

There are four organizations now that belong to the Merchant Navy Coalition for Equality, and as far as I'm aware, that embodies all the various merchant navy organizations. I'm sure you are aware that there is a division in the Canadian Merchant Navy Veterans Association, and that's why, when I introduced myself this morning, I said I was president or one of the presidents of the Merchant Navy Veterans Association. As Mrs. Wayne explained to you, that particular division is just about ready to be resolved. So for all intents and purposes, we are all operating under one umbrella: the Merchant Navy Coalition for Equality.

Mr. John O'Reilly: Maybe that clears up the various faxes and pieces of correspondence that have been sent to my office, where I get one claiming to be the president and the other claiming to be the president. I'm sure we can work through that. But the point of the matter is, in order for this committee to get to the bottom line, to get to the compensation package and to hear all the evidence, I want it to be very clear that everyone who comes before us is actually representing someone.

I agree with the cause. Don't get me wrong. I don't see any reason to hold up compensation, in my own mind, not on behalf of the committee, but I do see that this division tends to be holding it up.

Mr. Allan MacIsaac: Regardless of the unfortunate division we have in our organization, I can assure you, sir, that 99.9% of our merchant navy veterans agree that we should get compensation, and we're very close to agreeing on the exact amount we would all be asking for.

Mr. John O'Reilly: Okay. Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. That's the five minutes.

I will indicate to members that this is a 30-minute bell. We have about 26 minutes. There is still lots of time to finish our questions and deal with Mr. Laurin's motion.

Monsieur Laurin, you're passing now on questions. So we'll go to Mr. Stoffer, if he has additional questions.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Basically, I have a comment and a question.

In the information I've read and the presentation here, it seems that the government side is constantly looking at, oh, there's a division, so we better delay everything and hold off, and let's see if we can't worry about the semantics of the perception of all this. Yet every week that we delay compensation, we lose another two or three members. That's the shameful part of all of this.

I would remind the government side to forget about who's the president and who's not the president. What we're dealing with here are individuals such as those gentlemen right behind us. That's who we're dealing with, not whether they're part of an organization of this and that. Every single week we delay, we lose another one.

Maybe it's just a sinister ploy that if you wait long enough, they'll all be gone and then you don't have to do anything. Or maybe you're waiting for an election to come by, and a week before the election say “Who's left? Here's some money. Now, aren't we the great guys?”

It seems so obvious, folks, so damn obvious—if we could just agree and have a thing to send a clear message to the Prime Minister to tell his veterans affairs minister to cut the cheque and let's be done with this, and let these people live in peace for the honour they've given this country. Because all of us wouldn't be here if it weren't for them.

• 1050

Because of all this inter-wrangling and perception—I call it a bunch of garbage is what I call it—have you had a chance to go right to the big guy himself, to the Prime Minister, hold him to a table and tell him your point of view? Forget the committee. Forget Veterans Affairs. Go right to the person who can make a decision like that. Have you had the chance to meet with the Prime Minister to discuss your concerns? That's my question. Thank you.

Mr. Allan MacIsaac: Personally, I haven't. He's a very difficult person to pin down.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

I might remind all of us that the agreement made with all the various groups was to hold the hearing at this committee. With all due respect to the question, I think no one, including the Prime Minister, wants to pre-empt our work. We were seized with the issue. A lot of people want to come and give us testimony. I understand Mr. Stoffer's frustration, but we have to carry out the agreement we made with all the various groups, such as yourselves, who very much want to come and give testimony.

Let's continue. Now we go back to the government side. I have, for five minutes, Mr. Bertrand, Mr. Richardson, and then Mr. Wood. Mr. Bertrand.

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

I hae not so much a question as a point of clarification, for Captain Brooks. In your speaking notes, number 6, you mention that the Minister of Veterans Affairs not long ago restated: “...let me reiterate that they [Merchant Navy Veterans] are eligible for the same benefits as veterans of the Armed Forces.” Then at number 7 you go on to say: “Merchant Navy veterans dispute this statement because of the many omissions and deficiencies described in paragraph 2.9 of our Brief”. So I go back to the brief, number 2.9, and it says here:

First, the amended legislation

—by which I presume you mean Bill C-61—

will generally correct several omissions and deficiencies which profoundly affect Merchant Navy benefits. For example, the present Merchant Navy and Civilian War-related Benefits Act (1992) does not recognize as Merchant Navy service, in full or in part, the following situations.

You then enumerate all these situations. Which situation is not being recognized in this new bill?

Capt Tom Brooks: One of the omissions in the bill is that we tried to cover all merchant navy veterans. It was fairly easy to cover those who were in the merchant navy pool. We were also able to bring in those merchant navy veterans who were permanent employees of a shipping company. There is another group of veterans who freelanced their efforts throughout the war, and who may have even sailed longer than any of the people in the pool or with a company, who we have to figure out how to deal with at the next stage. We've covered almost everybody here, but not all of them.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: But the merchant seamen's manning pool, from my understanding of reading your brief, is covered in Bill C-61, is it not?

Capt Tom Brooks: Yes, the pool is covered in Bill C-61 and so are permanent employees. We have an omission there of those people who were freelancing.

The Chairman: Mr. Richardson.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We can almost see the ship come into port now with this cause. It's been a patient one. Since I've been here in 1993, this has been on the front burner with this committee. There's no doubt, in terms of your action, that you fought in dangerous waters; that the first prisoners of war were from the merchant navy and they were incarcerated longer than any other of the services; and that they had the loss of life at a rate higher than any of the other services on a pro-rated basis.

• 1055

At that time, this came under the Department of Trade and Commerce or Defence Production under C.D. Howe. This man was the busiest man in cabinet, and here he was, trying to look after the merchant mariners. It was turned over to a group, and I'm not aware of who the people were, but they did come in and develop the pool system and coordinate the efforts so that we could have people to man the ships going back and forth for the war. As a consequence, I don't think there was as strong a control on the personnel as there would have been if they had been under the Department of National Defence. As a consequence, there was fighting between the groups as to whom they should be reporting to.

I just want to preamble the question.

The Chairman: You have a little less than a minute to pose it and get an answer.

Mr. John Richardson: All right.

You've been denied most of the benefits of the past. Were you allowed to participate in the Veterans' Land Act?

Capt Tom Brooks: We were allowed only under one circumstance, and that was if you had been disabled due to enemy action or counteraction.

Mr. John Richardson: That's fine with me. I can't believe—

The Chairman: Mr. Wood, you have about half a minute to finish this round—all kinds of time.

Mr. Bob Wood: Right on.

I have one quick question. Sirs, one of the recommendations that was brought forward by another merchant navy organization called for the creation of a committee that would work out an acceptable formula for compensation. I think what they recommended was that the committee would be comprised of people from the merchant navy, from Veterans Affairs, and possibly other organizations. Are you aware of that proposal, and what do you think of it?

Capt Tom Brooks: Yes, we are aware of the proposal, and we wonder whether the people who put that proposal forward really realized that we do have a committee that has been struck and it's working with Veterans Affairs. We're not sitting now. We dealt with track one issues, which is Bill C-61. The committee is still there. We want to get back as soon as possible to deal with track two. So we have a committee.

Maybe there will be different players on that committee, because the focus is changing from legislation to financial, but we believe we have the committee now. We don't have to strike one.

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

We're approaching 11 o'clock. We have a vote pending in about 15 minutes.

Mr. MacIsaac, Captain Brooks, Captain Ady, and Captain Van Roosmalen, I want to thank all of you, and ladies and gentlemen in attendance who are interested in this important matter. Thank you very much for being here today for your testimony and for taking our questions. We hope to resolve this soon.

Colleagues, we do have an important procedural matter to deal with before we adjourn. I would refer you to the motion of Mr. Laurin on which he gave us notice several days ago. I think it speaks for itself.

I think Mr. Bertrand wants to comment on the motion. Then I'll give Monsieur Laurin the opportunity, if he has anything to say, and then we'll vote on it.

Mr. Bertrand, did you want to speak to it?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Bertrand: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

It's just to—

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Since it is my motion, I would like to give you some explanations before I hear your answer. I can guess what the answer will be.

[English]

The Chairman: No, it wasn't—

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: I would like to provide explanations to answer points that Mr. Bertrand raised at the last committee meeting, Mr. Chairman.

I think that this has been demonstrated, especially with the experience that we had last week in the Foreign Affairs Committee. They are giving us a half hour twice a week. We have added 15 minutes, but the number of participants has doubled. There is a Foreign Affairs Committee and a National Defence Committee. There are twice as many participants for a very short time. It is really not enough to allow everyone to ask questions, have their concerns addressed and provide this information to their constituents.

It has been suggested that we attend the National Defence briefing for journalists in the morning. I'm not sure that the journalists themselves agree with this solution. Once again, two groups would be combined and the number of participants would be doubled, thereby reducing the journalists' and parliamentarians' time for questions. Furthermore, the parliamentarians may not have the same interests as the journalists, and may not ask the same questions.

• 1100

For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I would like us to have briefings here, in the National Defence Committee, twice a week. Each time the committee meets, some time should be reserved to inform the MPs and for their questions.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Laurin. No, I had no intention of pre-empting you. I just thought you had explained that very well at the last meeting, but it may be good to say it again at this meeting. We understand your concerns. I'm sure we share them to some extent. So we have your explanation for the motion.

I just wanted Mr. Bertrand not so much to answer it as to give us the latest situation, and then we'll vote on the motion.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: It's more additional information than what Mr. Laurin has brought forward. It's just to let you know that the information meetings that have been held so far have been sponsored, if you will, by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Next week and I believe the week after the committee will be travelling, so this committee, SCONDVA, will be hosting the information briefings for the next couple of weeks. I believe it will be under the same format as SCOFAIT. We will have people from the Department of National Defence. We will have people from Foreign Affairs to come in and sit down and give us that information.

As Mr. Laurin said, there are still those daily briefings. I can understand that maybe people don't have the same interests, but it is there for them. Again, for the next couple of weeks the fact that it will be SCONDVA that will be hosting these meetings I think sort of answers one of Mr. Laurin's preoccupations, and for that reason I will be voting against Mr. Laurin's motion.

The Chairman: Thank you.

I would just indicate to the committee that I spoke with the chair of the foreign affairs and international trade committee, our colleague Mr. Graham, and the two ministers involved—all three ministers involved, actually—would prefer, to maximize the use of their staff time, that the future briefings be joint briefings, such as the one we had during the Easter break in this very room. So from now on all briefings on this subject will involve defence and foreign affairs.

I think that's probably a wise decision. We can argue about how much time is enough and how much time is available. From a practical point of view for us, it will either mean lengthening our meetings, because we have other important matters to consider, or arranging these at a special time.

Mr. Bertrand, I understand these are to be twice a week. Is that correct?

Mr. Robert Bertrand: Twice a week, yes.

The Chairman: From the chair, as I see Mr. Laurin's motion, I think that—although I think you're unhappy, my colleague, with the amount of time—what we've just said really does carry out your motion. The action you're calling for is in fact going to take place twice a week.

No? Okay, we'll put it to a vote in that case. I thought the intention was being carried out, although not for as much time as you wanted.

Anyhow, we have a motion duly moved.

(Motion negatived)

The Chairman: The motion is lost, but the hearings, as just explained, will continue.

Thank you, colleagues. The committee is adjourned.