NDVA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA DÉFENSE NATIONALE ET DES ANCIENS COMBATTANTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

• 1204

[English]

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

Colleagues, the first thing I would like to entertain from somebody is a motion to deal with the tabled motion in open session. There's no need for the tabled motion to be in camera, in my view. So unless I hear any disagreement, would somebody move we deal with Mrs. Wayne's motion in open session? It's moved by Mr. Richardson and seconded by Mrs. Longfield.

(Motion agreed to)

• 1205

The Chairman: So we're going to deal with Mrs. Wayne's motion. It should properly be in open session. Then I'd like a motion to go in camera, as is the normal procedure to deal with a draft study or analysis and discussion about a draft report. Those normally are dealt with in camera.

If I might, I have just a couple of words to say on our process here, and then we can proceed, because I know there are some people who are standing in for other colleagues who have been through this with us.

First of all, we've had many months of notice of a motion from Mrs. Wayne. It was tabled, and appropriately so, for us to hear the many witnesses we've heard. That process is complete, so now the first thing that should be done is to bring Mrs. Wayne's motion off the table and deal with it.

I'd like to say a word about this motion. You have it in front of you. I'm going to let Elsie speak to it in a minute. It has a specific number. We could be here for many months if we...

In the spirit of this, either we're going to offer a one-time ex gratia payment to the merchant marine or we're not. So if this motion passes, then that's fine; that's what will be done. If not, the whole issue is dead. I don't want to get into a dollar-by-dollar reduction—$19,999 and so on. I think we all know that's totally against the spirit of what we've been doing.

The numbers proposed range from $5,000 by the legion all the way up to the rather large sum of $200,000 by one individual mariner. I think we all took that with a grain of salt, but it's in the testimony. That's the range of the numbers requested. I think $20,000 was far more in the order of the range proposed by the vast majority of witnesses.

So Mrs. Wayne, I'm going to give you, as the mover of this motion, first kick at it. Do you want to read it into the record and then say a few words? Then we'll open it up for some discussion and have a vote.

Mrs. Wayne.

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

I know people came before the committee, some saying $5,000 and some saying up to $200,000. You'll note I did not go along with the $200,000 ex gratia payment whatsoever, but I am going to say this. Here in Canada, on the steps of Parliament Hill last summer, it was unbelievable the people who were here from around the world. When they saw those merchant navy men out on those steps on a hunger strike, those people from around the world—from Germany, from Holland, from England—could not believe what they had seen. They could not believe that we in Canada, with our image, had not treated them fairly.

We put them under the War Veterans Allowance Act in March, but we were about 50 years too late in doing it, because in London, England, they became equal during the Second World War, not 50 years later. They became the fifth arm way back in the Second World War. In Norway they made them equal in 1968. And the United States can say they did give them equality as well.

I'm telling you right now, we don't look good. The government doesn't look good. I really feel very strongly—and I probably will move this amendment—that this motion should be added as motion number four to the other three recommendations. I'm willing to do whatever I have to do to make this work for these men, because the last thing I want, Mr. Chairman, is to see them, from Vancouver to Newfoundland, up on the steps here on this Hill in September. And that is exactly what is going to happen. They are coming from Vancouver right through to Newfoundland.

The Chairman: I have to ask you to restrict yourself to the motion, though.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Okay.

The Chairman: Thanks very much. There was a little leeway there, just to put it in context.

• 1210

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Thank you.

The Chairman: We have a draft report from staff with three proposed motions. If action is taken in the affirmative on your motion, then it will properly become number four. If the action you're proposing is turned down, then it won't be mentioned in the report, because you only put affirmative proposals to the government in the report. So that's the process.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: But you just referred, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that perhaps we should just say “an ex gratia payment”, and not put dollars and cents in it.

The Chairman: No, your motion proposes an amount.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes, it does.

The Chairman: So we're sticking to your motion.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: But if you want me to change that so that I can get my colleagues on the government side to say yes...

The Chairman: That's the point where we're going to go with the vote.

First I have Mr. Mills.

Can I now restrict you? I gave Mrs. Wayne, as the mover, a little leeway to go off the motion. I want everybody now rigidly on this motion in front of us, for clarification or whatever, and then I simply want to call the vote on it, and we'll know which way we're going.

Mr. Mills, to the motion?

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Yes.

Certainly we will support this motion. When Bill C-61 became law, it recognized the merchant veterans for the wrong that was done in 1945. This seems to me just logical. The $20,000 seems a small amount compared to what they could have gotten had they been recognized in 1945. So it seems a reasonable compromise, and certainly we will be supporting this to become the fourth recommendation.

The Chairman: All right. Thank you.

Mr. Earle.

Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): I wonder if it would be in order to suggest an amendment to the motion, and I'll explain why.

What I would suggest by way of amendment is that it read something to the effect of

Moved by Elsie Wayne that the SCONDVA report recommend...

I'd suggest that those words go in front of what's already there.

The Chairman: That's a given. That's understood.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Well, it's not quite understood, because you said if it doesn't pass here, then it's not going to be in the report. What I'm suggesting is that this be incorporated into the report. So I'm suggesting the motion read:

That the SCONDVA report recommend that the Merchant Navy Veterans receive a one-time payment...

That way it's in the report, it's part of the report, and then the government has to respond to it in the same way it will respond to the other recommendations in the report.

That amendment does change the context somewhat from what you're doing here.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: It sure does.

The Chairman: Procedurally the problem I see with that is we haven't even taken an action on this motion. Let's take whatever action we want to take and then entertain a subsequent motion.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Well, what I'm saying is I want to amend the motion and then we'll take the action on the amended motion.

The Chairman: But you want to amend it in a procedural way that's not in line with the normal procedure of committees. First we have to deal with the motion.

Mr. Gordon Earle: I guess my point is...

The Chairman: I understand your point, Gordon. The problem is there's an established procedure, and you want us to deviate from it.

Mr. Gordon Earle: No, I'm not deviating from procedure. I'm trying to clarify a motion.

The Chairman: Tell us exactly what you want.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Okay. I would like the motion to read:

Moved by Elsie Wayne and seconded by Gordon Earle

—if you need a seconder—

that the SCONDVA report recommend that the Merchant Navy Marines...

The reason it is vital to put it that way is I don't think this committee has the authority to vote $20,000 or any amount of money to the merchant marines, and if we pass the motion the way it is now—

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: The minister has to deal with it.

Mr. Gordon Earle: —we can't vote yes or no to this, because we don't have the authority to do that.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: That's right.

Mr. Gordon Earle: But the government has the authority to respond to the issue. So the motion has to be that this is recommended in the report. That's what we're moving, that the report recommend this.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: That's right.

The Chairman: Okay. I see where you're going. It's not a big deal what you're proposing. You're right. I thought it was understood. This is a committee report to the House of Commons. We don't have the right to do that. The government would then take our recommendations, whatever way our recommendations are stated, and in 150 days or fewer, respond to them, and then take action or not. So if it brings you some comfort to add the wording that the SCONDVA report include this motion, I don't see a problem with that.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: And I don't have a problem with that.

The Chairman: But this motion has to carry in order for it to be in the report, just so you're clear.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Yes, and the difference is now we're voting on whether or not this motion goes into the report. We're not voting on the motion itself; we're voting on whether it's included in the report.

• 1215

The Chairman: That's right. Okay. I was just going to say let's deal with it first, but if you want to do it that way, that's fine.

Does anybody else want to speak to the motion specifically?

Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): I have a request for some clarification. As suggested in Mrs. Wayne's motion, is the $20,000 an income-tax-free amount? Is that the suggestion? Or will it be treated as a sum of money that will be taxed?

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: No, it's tax-free.

Mr. Art Hanger: Okay. It's just not noted here.

The Chairman: Can we include that as a friendly amendment then, “tax-free”?

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes.

The Chairman: All right.

Is that it, Mr. Hanger?

Mr. Art Hanger: That's good.

The Chairman: Okay.

Are we clear?

Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): I have two questions. One, is it in this research document, in point number two at the end, that the total amount of this compensation would be $56 million, if it were $20,000 each?

Ms. Corinne McDonald (Committee Researcher): That's according to the testimony we received from Professor Griezic. That was also for compensation to prisoners of war and injured merchant navy veterans as well. All of that was included.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you. Also, what is the process if, for instance, the merchant navy person who is alive now doesn't accept the $20,000 and gets married in the future? Does that count them as a surviving spouse? Are there any provisions around that?

The Chairman: I don't know. The motion doesn't speak to that, so...

Let's deal with the motion. I think we're clear. With Mr. Earle's friendly amendment that the SCONDVA report include this, all those in favour of the motion, please signify.

Mr. Art Hanger: Recorded vote.

The Chairman: All right.

(Motion negatived: nays 8; yeas 5—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: Now we need a motion to go in camera to deal with the draft report.

I'm sorry. Monsieur Lebel.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure I understand. Mr. Earle moved an amendment to the motion. Have we just voted on the amendment? Are we now proceeding to the vote on Ms. Wayne's main motion?

[English]

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: That's right.

The Chairman: What I said when I called the vote, Monsieur Lebel, is I was calling the vote on the amended motion. It was a friendly amendment by Mr. Earle. We voted on the main motion, and it was defeated.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: The amendment has been negatived. However, we still need to vote on the motion.

[English]

The Chairman: No. The whole motion was just voted on. The main motion was just voted on.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: That's incorrect, Mr. Chairman. You called for a vote on Mr. Earle's amendment, not on the substance of Ms. Wayne's motion. Don't start with that.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Lebel, in fact that's not what I did, but if it brings you comfort, I'll call a vote now on the main motion. All right?

I'm assuming you want another recorded vote.

I call the vote on the main motion as proposed by Mrs. Wayne in writing.

• 1220

(Motion negatived: nays 8; yeas 5—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: Thank you. Now Mrs. Wayne's motion has been defeated.

We have a motion to go in camera from Mrs. Longfield, seconded by Mr. Richardson.

(Motion agreed to)

[Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]