In 1997, when I was assistant to the assistant deputy minister, we carried out a study on the condition of the troops, in terms of their morale and their quality of life. Two of the five pre-eminent scholars who were involved in this study recommended, as the best solution, that the Canadian Armed Forces establish a union. The need was critical.
That started off the debate that lasted until I had to leave the Canadian Armed Forces for medical reasons. An argument was being made that a social contract should be concluded between veterans and the Canadian population through the government. I thought this idea could have at least been introduced through a motion in the House, or even through a bill.
Whether through a motion or a bill, an informed position had to be adopted. In that context, we could have established guidelines, a philosophy regarding veterans that would apply indefinitely and would require the whole government to respect the spirit, if not the letter, of that social contract.
Over the years, I have come to the realization that establishing a social contract would involve certain delimitations. Signing a contract implies that the two parties agree on the scope of that contract.
When I left for Africa, and my colleagues dispersed around the world, no one told me that there was a limit to the danger I should expose myself to in order to accomplish my mission. There was no limit. I was operating under a voluntary contract. It was actually voluntary the day I signed it, but not after that. I joined an organization that asked us to be ready and to follow the government's orders. We had no choice in the matter. Since we had no union, we had no right to refuse to participate in an operation. We were putting our lives on the line, and we were expected to be prepared for that.
If a nearly biblical state is established with regard to what an individual is asked to do, how can a contract be signed?
What I am suggesting is not a contract, but what is called a covenant.
But a covenant that has power to it, meaning that is has to go through the House of Commons, and potentially the Senate, in a such a way that it's recognized as a philosophical framework in which the people of the country and the veterans have come to an agreement that if you commit yourself to unlimited liability, then the country will commit itself to doing the best it can to meet that same challenge of unlimited liability for you, and those who are affected by it, meaning your family.
I'm afraid that's my short answer on that one.