Veterans Affairs Committee on Feb. 27th, 2007

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Thank you.

Picking up on something that Mr. Sweet was getting at, I wonder to what extent the Legion movement partly came together because of the need of people to talk. I think that just having somebody to talk to, whether it's a professional, a friend, or a colleague, often can lead to at least some degree of amelioration of a post-traumatic stress disorder occurring.

Should there be some kind of mentoring system? When you leave the military, is there somebody assigned to you that you must talk to, at least for an extended period of time, just to be sure there aren't some hidden issues that, unlike a physical wound, are not evident? Should there be some sort of institutionalized mentoring to at least allow for some of these cases to be identified, as opposed to somebody volunteering?

[Dr. Pascale Brillon]

Your point is very interesting. Earlier we were talking with Mr. Stoffer about the possibility that people might fake PTSD, but we know that there are also people who hide their PTSD. Both extremes are possible, meaning that there are people who are exaggerating their symptoms in order to get compensation and there are people who refuse to admit that they have it. In general, we feel there are many more people hiding their PTSD, for an important reason.

First, we have said it over and again, it is a source of shame, it has a very bad reputation in the Canadian armed forces. But there is another reason: if someone suffers from PTSD and they are therefore a veteran, this means they are no longer in the army. For many, this means the end of their lives. For many soldiers no longer being able to wear the uniform, carry a gun, no longer belonging to that great big family... Many people sign up because it is a corps, there is team spirit: you can die beside someone else, and they can die for you. For many people, the CF fills graps they experienced during their childhood. They didn't have that family, that discipline, that confidence in others, that motivation that comes from the feeling that they are doing good.

What we see, when they come to therapy, when we tell them that they are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, is that they think this means they have to leave the CF. But the CF is their whole life. They don't want to think of themselves as civilians because civilians are "losers", they're dummies. Being in the military means being associated with pride in your country and pride in yourself.

What you said was extremely important: how can we ensure that they can remain in the forces, keep that identity, continue to serve their country and feel good about themselves?

As far as I know, there is no room in the forces at present for people who are sick. However, if we were talking about police officers, I would tell them that they are not currently fit to return to mobile patrols, but that they can find an administrative job or part-time work. This is not possible in the armed forces. We cannot tell soldiers that they will do administrative work on a part-time basis. Their regiment may be deployed. This means that they may be sent on a mission. Many of them believe that having PTSD means giving up everything that gave their lives meaning, it means forging a new identity for themselves. They were soldiers, with all the ranks, the hierarchy, the team spirit and the uniform, and now they are civilians. The army doesn't think much of civilians.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

I would like to thank you for your appearance, and I think Monsieur Perron would like to back that up.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Dr. Brillon, you gave an excellent presentation. I think, looking around the table, that I've never seen this committee so attentive, and hanging on someone's every word like that. Thank you very much and continue your good work. My greatest wish would have been for the 308 MPs to have been here along with the members of the forces and veterans, because you have taught us a great deal.

[Dr. Pascale Brillon]

It was my pleasure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Just to let everybody know, I think we have a matter of business we'll want to touch on.

To the witness, I say thank you very much. I hope we'll follow up on some of your recommendations for other witnesses and guests we could hear on this issue.

Committee members will please stay.

Mr. Stoffer.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, I am speaking with regard to the Vimy trip commemorating the 90th anniversary. It starts, I believe, around April 5. It's come to my attention that there's just a slight bit of an issue with the perception of a minister taking members of Parliament instead of additional veterans and/or their representatives. A way to get around that is to allow the minister the opportunity to take additional veterans--or veterans, period--with him in the official delegation.

If we move a motion agreeable among all of us saying that the committee would like, as a committee, to travel to the Vimy Ridge memorial to represent all parties and to represent Canada as well in conjunction with the minister's trip, there's an opportunity for us. I would like to seek unanimous consent to move a motion and to waive the 48 hours. We could at least give our chairperson and our researcher the opportunity to ascertain the logistics of that, so that this committee itself would be able to travel, because we ourselves haven't travelled internationally yet. They would be able to ascertain the opportunity for this committee to go to Vimy for the 90th anniversary of that memorial.

It's April 5 to April 9.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Thank you very much, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Valley is next, and then Mr. St. Denis.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

I support Mr. Stoffer. I think it's important that we be there. I have both this business and personal reasons. I think it's important, but I want somebody to tell me if we can charge it to this year's budget. Can we book the plane fare and the rooms right now, and get it done?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Alexandre Roger]

Yes.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

I think that's important. Part of our mandate is to make sure we're looking after veterans. We haven't spent any money this year, as you said. We have lots and lots of room in the budget; let's deal with it under the budget before the end of March. I think it's a good idea.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

The clerk tells me that of course it will have to go to the Liaison Committee, but he says yes, it is possible.

Go ahead, Mr. St. Denis.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

I think it's certainly a good idea and I'll personally be supporting the motion.

I will be checking, though, just to see what happened at the 80th. I think, as much as we want to respect our veterans, there is a role for parliamentarians in all of this too. I don't want to set a precedent that parliamentarians are going to be forever ignored in the future by the minister of the day, whether Conservative, Liberal, Bloc Québécois, or anything else. I just put it on the record that I'm concerned about a precedent.

I am going to check and see what happened for the 80th. If it's been standard practice forever that it was just the minister and a minimum of support staff who went to these things, fine. I don't think that's the case, however. If we're always going to be backstopping the minister through our committee all the time....

The veterans are absolutely important in all this, but so too is our role as parliamentarians. We don't always know that the budget committee of the House is going to approve these things. I think the minister should know that it isn't without some questioning that this position is being taken.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Just to be slightly more blunt, we want to make sure the committee members are there. If we're there, to be totally blunt, we don't want the minister taking a whole bunch of other MPs because he didn't have room for us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

No, no. I'll share with the committee my understanding of this. As it's been explained to me, it really has depended upon the circumstance and the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the occasion. There were times when they took members of Parliament; there were times when they took almost entirely veterans. It was dependent on the situation at the time. On some occasions when the minister brought members of Parliament, veterans groups actually openly protested and publicly created embarrassment for the government for doing so. I think to avoid the possibility of that, with regard to this particular instance, the minister has opted to take veterans with his contingent of 15 people. I don't know if that explains it in terms of 1980, but it gives you some context for the past.

Go ahead, Mr. Stoffer.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

I think Mr. Brent St. Denis makes a valid point, and it's something to look into. The point I'm trying to make is that in fairness to the government and to the minister, our veterans are in their mid-80s now. The last trip to Holland was the last hurrah for many of them. This will definitely be the last hurrah for some of them.

If it's possible to do it this way, I think I would be supportive, but I think Mr. St. Denis makes a good point: there is a role for all of us in this particular regard.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Also, keep in mind that the government is paying for 5,000 students as well, so there will be lots of people taken.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

That's not what we were told.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Oh, that was my understanding.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

We were told that the students raised their own money.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Oh, I'm sorry. Forgive my ignorance. You're absolutely right. I'm sorry, 5,000 students will be going. You're exactly right.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

You scared me there, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

That was a blurb on my part.

That's the motion we have before us.

Mr. Sweet.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Actually, my heart is in the motion, let me put it that way, but I am concerned about optics. And in fact, if 5,000 kids raised their own money, then that even heightens my concern a bit more.

But I do think there is something we could probably do. The key thing would be whether we are serving the veterans by being there.

And if that's the case, does anybody see any problem with our firing off a letter to the Royal Canadian Legion and maybe one or two other organizations, just saying that we would like to be there and we would like to serve? We would phrase it, obviously, with the appropriate language, that we'd like to know that we were being a service to veterans and would like their input on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Okay, that's an interesting point.

Mr. Shipley, and then Mr. Stoffer.