Bill C-378 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Department of Veterans Affairs Act (fairness principles)

This enactment amends the Department of Veterans Affairs Act to require that, in exercising his or her powers and in performing his or her duties and functions, the Minister of Veterans Affairs take into account certain principles in relation to, among others, persons who have served in the Canadian Forces or merchant navy or in the naval, army or air forces or merchant navies of Her Majesty as well as in relation to their dependants or survivors.

Veterans Affairs

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak about the veterans affairs committee report that is before us. The reality is that the Minister of Veterans Affairs has great power, and literally with one fell swoop of a pen she could make this happen if she wanted to. The situation has been going on far too long. The committee report, as I said, was somewhat vague in its recommendations. There was not unanimous support, because there was a dissenting report by the NDP that called for the change to happen as soon as possible; however, I think there was agreement. A lot of witnesses came forward and spoke to this particular issue.

In October 2016 I was given the honour by then leader Rona Ambrose to be the critic for veterans affairs. Admittedly, it was a very difficult time, after the 2015 election, to be the critic for veterans affairs. I had a tremendous amount of advice given to me by the former Conservative minister of veterans affairs, Erin O'Toole, on what I needed to do as the new critic at the time.

I immediately embarked on a cross-Canada tour to meet with veterans, their families, stakeholders and advocates. I was very grateful to do that with the member for Yorkton—Melville, with whom I will be splitting my time. She is a great advocate for veterans and their families.

As I went across the country, obviously coming out of the 2015 election, as difficult as that period was, there were a lot of questions posed to me. I did not back away from any of them at all; I faced them head on. I talked to veterans and their families right across the country and explained to them the challenges that had come out of and in advance of the 2015 election.

Many of the people I spoke to were grateful for the types of programs the former Conservative government had put in, but there were some issues. I faced those issues head-on. The one thing that veterans appreciate more than anything else is telling them the truth. Face their questions head on, admit when mistakes were made and do not necessarily take credit for everything; show some humility. Those are some of the things I tried to do.

I have listened to much of the debate this morning, and the blame game is being used in this place. I will say that this is a very toxic place right now; everybody is looking for political positioning. The NDP and the Liberals are 20 to 25 points behind in the polls, so they are looking to attack the Conservatives in any way they can. That is part of it, and I get it.

However, when it comes to veterans and their families, there should be no attacks or partisan games. Veterans and their families can smell it from a mile away. They know when they are being used as political pawns by political parties, and in much of the debate I have heard today, that is happening. Frankly, veterans and their families do not give a flying you-know-what about what people say; it is what they do that matters.

There were difficult times; I admit that now as I did when I was critic for veterans affairs, but the one thing I was with veterans was honest. If there was something that we could do, we did it; if there was something that we could not do, I would tell them why. It was in that spirit that in 2017, after travelling the country and talking to veterans, their families, stakeholders and others, I proposed my private member's bill, Bill C-378, which would have established a military covenant, an obligation between the Crown and our veterans.

I used the example of Great Britain at the time because it was the only Commonwealth country, and the only country in the world in fact, that had established a military covenant. The covenant would have been based on respect and would have obligated not just the government of the day but also governments of the future to prioritize the needs of veterans and their families.

There were many cases I heard about where benefits were not being applied in a fair amount of time, so I was hoping that, by establishing that obligation on the minister, on the government and on future governments, including our government, veterans would have been respected.

The bill dealt with three basic principles; the minister would have to have taken into account, in every act that they undertook, the three principles. The first is that veterans, as well as their families, survivors in the context of what we are talking about today in the so-called gold digger clause, would have been taken into account and been treated with dignity, respect and fairness.

The second principle is that veterans and their duties are unique among Canadians, which I think we can all recognize. There is an obligation to care for veterans because of the sacrifices made by them, and that obligation extends as well to the experience of their families.

The third core principle in the military covenant that I looked to establish through a private member's bill was that the care, treatment and transition of Canadian Armed Forces in and to civilian life would be dealt with in a timely manner.

I have sat on committees and I have been through many Veterans Affairs reports, including the ones involving transition. I think the number, and maybe the member for Yorkton—Melville can correct me, is that there have been about 13 or 14 reports on military members' transitioning into civilian life, but many of the problems are still a problem.

Oftentimes at committees, when witnesses some and make recommendations to the government, the government responds but the reality is that, in many circumstances, nothing gets done. We wonder why veterans and their families are frustrated when consecutive governments do not fulfill their obligation to those veterans. Unfortunately my private member's bill, Bill C-378, which would have established the military covenant, was defeated in 2017. I was extremely disappointed by the fact that we were not able to fulfill that obligation to veterans and their families.

I will remind members again that service extends beyond the battlefield; it is not just about the men and women who are on the front lines protecting our nation, defending peace and security around the world and the rule of law, human rights and human dignities. The service of the families back home, who worry and who are there to support their family while their military member is deployed, in my opinion, is equal to or greater than the member's service and sacrifice itself.

With respect to the clause in question, the report suggested that there were roughly 9,000 people who would be affected by it. It is interesting, because there was a PBO report in 2022 that showed five-year costs would be over $1.3 billion over those five years. The Canada pension plan 2019-2020 annual report indicated that the removal of the clause would be less than a 2% change, or less than $1 billion on an annual basis, of $38.9 billion in payouts.

Let us put that in context in terms of what this nation is spending as far as foreign aid is concerned. Veterans and their families are not unlike anybody else; they see the amount of money that is going towards supporting other nations. They see the amount of waste. They see the amount of money, for example, in the SDTC scandal of $400 million.

They are able to calculate all the numbers and figure it out, and they ask, “Why are we not looking after ourselves? Why are we not looking after, as a matter of priority, our veterans and their families?” when they see announcements of billions and billions of dollars going towards what they would consider, because they have told me this, ideological pet projects.

I believe it is incumbent upon us to look after our veterans, not just by the words that we say but also by the actions that we take. Bill C-378 would have established the military covenant and provided respect and dignity to our veterans. I stand by everything I have done as veterans affairs critic, and I will stand by veterans now and forever.

National Defence Act

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if my French were a bit better, then we would not need the interpretation, but I am working on it.

I do want to clarify something I was saying just before question period. I mentioned the situation regarding the Truro police officer Catherine Campbell and I referred to her as “Christine” Campbell, not “Catherine” Campbell. A good friend of mine is named Christine Campbell and it is easy for me to think in those terms.

Let me go back to question period today. Members of the official opposition, including me, again asked several government members and the public safety minister about the situation with respect to Tori Stafford and the fact that her killer has been moved to an aboriginal healing centre.

In the context of speaking of a victims bill of rights, I cannot believe for the life of me that the government is tripling down on this situation. Tomorrow we will be presenting an opposition day motion to deal with this situation, because Canadians are so outraged by this. Over the weekend, Tori Stafford's father issued a letter to the Prime Minister begging him to reverse this decision, which we are going to ask the government to do tomorrow.

It is my hope that the government will not quadruple down on this and will instead do the right thing. Canadians are outraged by this entire situation. They are outraged that the killer would be allowed to be placed not behind bars and razor wire, but instead be surrounded by trees at an aboriginal healing centre where there are children as well.

The minister tried to answer the question by saying that there are children at the Grand Valley Institution. The fact is that the Grand Valley Institution is entirely surrounded by fences and razor wire and the inmates are in pods behind bars.

The minister is suggesting that the two institutions are the same. One is a medium-maximum security prison and the other is a medium-minimum security prison. By the minister suggesting that they are similar, he is not being frank with Canadians, and that needs to be clarified.

When I was on the veterans affairs committee, we often dealt with the issue of PTSD and the impact that it has on our serving members. Quite a few forces members came before that committee and spoke about sexual assault and the impact it has. This again relates to Bill C-77. We had quite lengthy discussions at the veterans affairs committee over this and how it relates specifically to military justice and the Canadian justice system.

Bill C-77 is a cut-and-paste version of what the previous Conservative government introduced in Bill C-71 at the end of its mandate in 2015.

The purpose of Bill C-77 is to align the military justice system of Canada with the Criminal Code of Canada. The bill would do this in a number of ways, such as enshrining a victims bill of rights in the National Defence Act.

The Victims Bill of Rights was quite a comprehensive document. The intent of the previous government was, in contrast to the current government, to look after victims and their families to make sure that within the criminal justice system they were looked after. The emphasis in the Victims Bill of Rights was not on criminals but on the victims.

This piece of legislation would enshrine the Victims Bill of Rights into the National Defence Act, putting a statute of limitations of six months on summary hearing cases and clarifying what cases should be handled by a summary hearing. Bill C-71 would have instituted these changes as well had it passed the previous Parliament.

The main difference between this legislation and Bill C-71 is the addition of the Gladue decision into the National Defence Act. This addition will mean that aboriginal members of the Canadian Forces facing charges under the National Defence Act would face lighter punishments and special consideration if convicted.

We have heard on this side of the House during the debate all day that it could result in sentences that are less harsh versus other CAF members, so the question of fairness comes into it. Members could undermine operational discipline, morale and anti-racism policies.

The vast majority of Bill C-77 is based on the previous Conservative government's bill. We are going to support this bill, but we are going to seek some amendments at the committee stage. Excuse the cynicism, but it is our hope that this bill and some of those amendments that come at committee will be looked at by the government side. I know that we will have lots of stakeholders who come to committee. There will be recommendations from those stakeholders, including first nations communities and other advocates for military justice and civil justice in this country. It is our hope that the government will listen to all the information that comes forward and will deal with some of those considerations. Again, the government has not shown that commitment in the past to being open to many of the recommendations, not just from the Conservative side but from the NDP side as well. We are hoping that the Liberals will do that.

The previous bill had hundreds of consultations. They had stakeholders. Victims and members of communities came forward and spoke to Bill C-71. We landed at a good place with that piece of legislation. However, the Gladue decision certainly made changes to that.

I am fortunate, as you are, Mr. Speaker, to be close to a military base, base Borden, or camp Borden, as it was known in the past. In the time I have spent at base Borden and with base commander Atherton, as well as Chief Warrant Officer Charette, many people who serve have come and gone. When I was the critic for veterans affairs, I used to travel across the country meeting with military members, veterans and stakeholders and their families. The first question I would ask when I was in front of them was how many had gone through base Borden, and the hands would go up. It is the largest training base in Canada. I used to ask how many were at camp Borden, and some hands would go up, and I would say to those people, boy, they were old, because it has not been camp Borden for a while.

It is an integral part of our community, and those members who are placed at base Borden, as Canada's largest training base, come from all over the country. In fact, they come from all over the world to train in languages and other disciplines. I am quite honoured to be able to represent an area that has a military base like base Borden. In fact, there are thousands of people who live in my riding who are stationed at the base and work there in either a military or civilian capacity. They are truly heroes, in my mind.

I try to spend as much time at the base as I can. I was there last week when the United Nations peacekeepers were in town. They were holding their biannual meeting, and I was there for a speech at the base. I went there for dinner and then there was a ceremony at Peacekeepers' Park in Angus.

It plays an important role in our community, and not just an economic role. The connection to the base is one that is valued and cherished, so supporting our military members at all levels, including with this piece of legislation, is critical in what we do here in Parliament as parliamentarians.

In conclusion, I would say that Bill C-77 is an important piece of legislation. We are supportive of this bill proceeding to committee. We think it needs some work and some scrutiny. Therefore, I hope that when it gets to committee, the majority Liberal side will take some of these concerns we have and that stakeholders have and implement this to make it a better piece of legislation.

I would be remiss if I did not speak about something that was a passion of mine. I am really disappointed that it never received support from Parliament. It received support from this side and the NDP side, but not from the government side. It is Bill C-378, which was a private member's bill I proposed about having a military covenant with our military members. We would have been only the second country in the world to establish such a covenant, behind Great Britain, and unfortunately, the government side did not support it. It related specifically to the sacrifice made by veterans. It is something I was very proud to present, and I was very sorry to see that it did not pass through this Parliament.

However, there is hope, because at our policy convention in Halifax just a few short weeks ago, members of the Conservative Party made it a point to ensure that as a matter of policy, a military covenant would be established between our veterans and the people of this country who owe them so much.

Opposition Motion—Veterans Affairs

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from the NDP, as a veteran herself, for her service to Canada.

First of all, this is about our veterans, how we move forward, and how we make sure we get this right. This should not be a partisan issue. Unfortunately, we have a government and a Prime Minister that have used them as pawns. They have made promises and have betrayed our veterans. We want to make sure that we point that out to Canadians so they understand that there has been a betrayal. There is no trust in the government to honour that sacred obligation we have as Canadians.

We had an opportunity last night to actually start moving ahead. We had an opportunity to pass Bill C-378, which would have put in statute law that sacred obligation, that social contract veterans are owed by the government and the people of Canada and what Canadians believe should be done. It was not just for the sake of veterans but because it is the right thing to do. It is time for us to move on this, and it is time for the government to finally get it right.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my friend, the member for Yorkton—Melville.

This is an important debate today. First and foremost, let us honour our veterans, those who have gone out there and served, who fought, and made sure we are safe here at home. They have made major sacrifices on behalf of themselves and their families. It is important that not only do we honour and respect them but that we share the covenant and sacred obligation to support them.

As Conservatives we believe in that, to the letter, unlike the government. The reason we are having this debate today is because of some very insensitive comments made by the Prime Minister in a town hall just recently. However, this started before the Prime Minister was in Edmonton, and said there was no more to give.

This started when the Prime Minister broke his promise that he would no longer force veterans to fight their own government for the support and compensation that they have earned.

When we look at the promise that was made back on August 24, 2015, which is in the motion that we are debating here today, and look at what the government did, not only by taking the Equitas group of veterans back to court, we have to look at the arguments it made.

In paragraph 99 of the submission, the government says to the defendants, meaning Equitas, the veterans, that there is no written, defined, or articulated social covenant or social contract between members of the Canadian Armed Forces, the government, and people of Canada, which has those attributes.

Despite the rhetoric that has been coming from the Liberals, their argument has been that there is no social contract or social covenant. They actually say it again, that at no time in Canada's history has any alleged social contract or social covenant had the attributes pleaded by the plaintiffs, the veterans, been given effect in any statute, regulation, or as a constitutional principle, written or unwritten.

Again, the Liberals are arguing that no principles exist, there is no certainty, there is no clarity, and that the Government of Canada has no obligation to our veterans. That is really disappointing.

I have met with some people of the Equitas lawsuit, including Aaron Bedard who does Veteran Guerrilla Radio on Facebook. These are veterans who have been fighting the government. These are veterans we had a handshake agreement with under the former minister of veterans affairs, the member of Parliament for Durham, our friend and colleague.

We were moving forward as a government to fix that. The Prime Minister said quite clearly in the election campaign that veterans would not have to fight the government in court, but then Liberals turned around and betrayed veterans who went out and campaigned for them, working on their behalf. The Liberals betrayed them by not honouring that promise.

It was a broken Liberal promise, and veterans are back in court.

The next broken promise was when the Liberals said that veterans were going to have a lifetime pension. The member for Winnipeg North was just saying that Liberals gave them a lifetime pension. He is not listening to what veterans are actually saying, because veterans feel betrayed by the Liberal program that was announced.

Don Sorochan, lead counsel for the Equitas Society, said:

The position taken by the government was astonishing. For them to stand up and say we don't have any special obligation to veterans was completely contrary to everything they had been saying in Parliament, on the election campaign.

Mark Campbell, who is part of the Equitas group, said:

The new pension for life is nothing more than a shell game.

Sean Bruyea, who is a veteran and veterans advocate, said on CBC:

Instead, the government merely resurrected ghosts of Christmases past with a hodgepodge of benefits that amount to recycled, remodeled, and repackaged programs that already exist.

There is no new money here, and any new money that the Liberals are talking about is actually down the road, past 2019, past the next federal election. There is actually no cash in the bank for veterans today. That is why veterans were on the front lawn protesting the government for betraying them and breaking the promise about not having to take them back to court, and betraying them and breaking the promise about having a true pension for life.

We just heard the member for Winnipeg North, and we hear the Minister of Veterans Affairs stand up in question period. The Minister of Veterans Affairs gets up here with his bravado, chest-thumping, and Liberal arrogance. I can tell members that veterans are insulted when he performs that way. It is not showing respect for our veterans. It is not honouring their service, and they feel they have been used as political pawns, as many members on the other side have with veterans when they stood behind the Prime Minister, and made promises for lifetime pensions, and when they made promises to actually keep veterans out of court. This is just completely disrespectful.

We can look at what the Prime Minister actually said in Edmonton when he was asked by a veteran, an amputee, why we were still fighting against certain veterans groups in court. The Prime Minister responded, “Because they're asking for more than we are able to give.” Of course, there were boos and shouts. Even the Royal Canadian Legion, which usually does not get involved in political statements, said, “These sorts of words are extremely insensitive.” Again, it is another betrayal that we have a Prime Minister who says that there is no money, and there is no sacred obligation in the court case.

However, there was an opportunity just last night when my colleague, the member for Barrie—Innisfil, came forward with Bill C-378, which would restore fairness principles and the sacred obligation, and to actually put that into statute law. Every single Liberal stood and voted against the recognition of the sacred obligation that the government has to our veterans. I am disgusted by that.

The Prime Minister says that it is more than we can give. I can tell members that the Liberals had no problem finding $2.6 billion to help developing countries fight climate change. That money could have been used here to actually enhance spending for veterans. Just earlier this week, we learned that the Liberal government announced $59.5 million to Burkina Faso for education efforts there. Why are we not spending that on our veterans? The Prime Minister says that it is more than we are able to give, I guess, to our veterans.

Our veterans are out protesting on the front lawn right next to a $8.1 million temporary skating rink. That could have been used to support our veterans. There is the $10.5 million payout to Omar Khadr, a convicted terrorist who was prepared to kill our veterans who were serving in Afghanistan. Let us not forget the reintegration of returning ISIS terrorists to Canada. There are federal dollars for that, and the $500 million to the Chinese-Asia infrastructure bank.

This is not the only time the Liberals have taken our veterans to court. We just learned last week that they are also taking the Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans who have faced sexual harassment and sexual misconduct, while they served in the Canadian Armed Forces, to court from a class action lawsuit. In its argument, the Government of Canada said that it does not “owe a private law duty of care to individual members within the Canadian Armed Forces to provide a safe and harassment-free work environment, or to create policies to prevent sexual harassment or sexual assault.”

The Prime Minister said he did not know about it, but that just shows he is incompetent. This actually undermines the Chief of the Defence Staff General Vance's Operation Honour where he wants to encourage victims of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct to come forward and report. Meanwhile, we have the government actually taking those veterans back to court with the class action lawsuit against the government.

It is amazing that all the litigation that the Government of Canada undertakes actually goes through a cabinet committee on litigation management, which is chaired by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and actually five out of seven members are women. The vice-chair is the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, who used to be the minister of status of women, and the Attorney General sits on that special cabinet committee on litigation management. Therefore, the Liberals knew about it, and let it go forward, which points out the hypocrisy they have. If it is not hypocritical, then they are incompetent for allowing this to go forward.

To summarize, when it comes down to restoring lifetime pensions as promised by the Prime Minister, he broke that promise. When it comes down to veterans being forced to take their government to court, the Prime Minister broke that promise. When it comes to making life easier for veterans, he broke that promise.

It is time for the Liberals to honour those election promises, and apologize for the way they are treating our veterans in Canada.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to clarify that with respect to some of the items that were in Bill C-378, timeliness, dignity, and respect are already part of the Veterans Bill of Rights. That is why putting it into legislation was not appropriate.

My colleague is a new member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. I appreciate the opportunity to work with him on veterans affairs. He is very passionate about it. I look forward to continuing to work with him. With respect to his question, I think we have demonstrated our commitment. When he said that we have not increased benefits, we have increased the earnings loss benefit or pre-release salary from 75% to 90%. We have been in office for two years. We have made great strides, with close to $10 billion in dedicated new funding for veterans. There is still so much more we can be doing. We need to work together to ensure that the veterans who have served us so valiantly continue to be served.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for the question. As he is a former firefighter, I thank him for his service to his community.

What the member opposite did not mention is that I met with him in my office on November 21, regarding Bill C-378. I asked him many questions regarding the bill, such as how we would measure timeliness, because what would be timely for one may not be timely for others, and how we would measure dignity and respect. I asked him about the social covenant that the U.K. uses and how it has been implemented. I asked him to work with me. If the objective is to increase timeliness and support our veterans, I asked him to work with me, to stand shoulder to shoulder, and do it together. I asked him to come back to me. I stood in this very House on December 1 to debate Bill C-378. I asked him to work with me. I never heard back.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her two sons who provide a great service to our country.

This debate today is about insensitive comments made to a veteran in Edmonton based on promises the Prime Minister made.

I appreciate the fact that the hon. member talks about partisanship. We had an opportunity last night, when we debated a bill I introduced, Bill C-378, for all of the House to come together and recognize the sacred obligation that we as a government and Canadian people had to our veterans, and to enshrine those principles of a military covenant and the sacred obligation into the Veterans Affairs Act through amendments I proposed. The government side, including the member with two sons, voted against Bill C-378.

Therefore, if the intent is to truly cast aside partisanship in this place, why did the member not support the amendments I proposed yesterday?

Opposition Motion—Trans Mountain Expansion Project

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Pursuant to Standing Order 30(7) the House will now proceed to the consideration of Bill C-378 under private members' business.