Veterans Affairs Committee on Sept. 19th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 103 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motions adopted by the committee on March 9, 2023, and Tuesday, December 5, 2023, the committee resumes its study on the recognition of Persian Gulf veterans and wartime service.

Before we begin, I would like to ask all members participating in person to read the guidelines on the updated cards on the table regarding any acoustic problems that may occur, as these can cause hearing injuries to participants, but especially to the interpreters. I ask everyone to keep their headsets away from the microphone.

As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair.

Now I would like to welcome our witness.

We have with us today Kevin “Sammy” Sampson, president of the Rwanda Veterans Association of Canada.

Mr. Sampson, you will have five minutes for your opening remarks. After that, members will ask you questions, but just before that, I have Mr. Desilets.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Chair, since we're starting the meeting 15 minutes late, I just want to know how this is going to work. Will we still end the meeting at 1:00 p.m. or at 1:15 p.m.? If we're going to cut time from the meeting, what part will it be?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Desilets.

Since we have a witness and have set aside an hour for his testimony, we're going to spend an hour with him. The second part of the meeting will be held in camera to consider the draft report on the transition to civilian life, so it will be up to the members of the committee to decide whether they want to stop at 1:00 p.m. for question period or continue the meeting.

Let's get back to Mr. Sampson.

You have five minutes for your opening statement.

[Kevin, Sammy) Sampson (President, Rwanda Veterans Association of Canada]

Thank you very much, Chair.

My name is Kevin Sampson. I go by “Sammy”. I'm a veteran of Iran, Rwanda, Haiti, Bosnia, central Africa, Afghanistan and the liberation of Kuwait. I'm also the president of the Rwanda Veterans Association, and I am the primary researcher behind the wartime service claim for the Gulf War veterans.

Today, I'll be able to answer any policy-based questions that you have concerning wartime service, as well as any cultural questions you have about wartime service—for example, why don't we see it and what does it mean and so forth.

I've been asked to come here today and speak to you on two very specific issues. One issue is insurance. The other issue is why this policy is hidden and relatively unknown to Canadians, to members of Parliament and also to veterans? I think that's going to be an interesting discussion to explain.

I'm going to begin the discussion, however, by talking about insurance and talking about the difference in insurance between wartime service and special duty service.

To be clear, members of Parliament place Canadian Armed Forces personnel on active service using national defence legislation. You decide to send us to a dangerous country with a weapon, and you ask us to live in a war zone. In doing so, you place us on active service so that officers of Canada, military officers, can order us to do things that are very hazardous and generally against, you know...it's not a good idea.

How do we get people to do those things? The answer is not volunteerism. The answer is active service legislation, which holds Canadian soldiers accountable for failing to comply with legal orders to take on dangerous tasks. Members of Parliament do that for us. You place us on active service.

It is the Department of National Defence, on its own accord, that in turn takes that active service and delineates it into two different types of services. There is wartime service, which no Canadian Forces personnel has obtained since 1953 and not without a multi-decade battle with Parliament. Second World War veterans had to fight. Korean War veterans had to fight. Merchant marine veterans had to fight. Everybody has had to fight for it, for 30 years.

That's the gift that the Department of National Defence gives to veterans when you place us on active service and send us into harm's way. They immediately subjugate all service down to the “special duty service” category. Everybody wants to know why.

This is unlike the Government of Australia, which allows their soldiers to achieve wartime status for fighting in the more dangerous...or being in conflicts where there are more risks of injury. They allow their soldiers to get to that level, and the insurance is at a higher level because they are taking on higher risk.

Our system does not ever allow anybody to achieve wartime service status: Persian Gulf, special duty; Afghanistan, special duty service. If we are going to look at fixing the problem of insurance, you first have to recognize that DND is taking and manipulating it nefariously once you have done your job by placing us on active service.

They are nefariously and maliciously changing the definition of our service from active service to special duty service, and this is why. In the early 2000s, the Government of Canada committed the military to the toughest provinces in Kandahar, Afghanistan. Prior to making that commitment to our partners, it is certain that the Department of National Defence and Veterans Affairs Canada projected a forecast of what the injuries would cost Canadians over the next 50 years. This is data that is available to members of Parliament and to the Department of National Defence, but it's not available to us. If we look at a general 10% to 15% injury rate, it could cost billions of dollars over 50 years to pay for the injuries and the deaths that are associated with high-risk conflicts like Afghanistan.

It is obvious that the government was quite aware of what the mission would cost. It was at that point they did the unthinkable: The government slashed our insurance for special duty service to 20%. If we had a labour relationship team managing our labour, they would be in here screaming that you have not reduced the legal capacity to order us to do things that may result in our death, but you have in fact reduced our insurance for injuries to 20%. That's 20% compared to wartime service and 20% compared to our RCMP, who use the same benefit system.

You're essentially telling Canadians that a German bullet will pay 100% insurance and a Korean bullet will pay 100% insurance, but if you're unfortunate enough to be shot by the Taliban, you're getting only 20¢ on the dollar for that injury. Nothing tells Canadian soldiers that you do not value our active service more than reducing our insurance in such a drastic way. The next political party came into power and it was upped to 40%. That's currently where we sit—at 40%.

To close out my remarks, there is another country in the world that uses this language. Vladimir Putin makes a big deal out of calling his mission a “special military operation”. We've made a lot of jokes about that, but I remind you, as members of Parliament, that it's only funny until you realize that he stole that idea from us.

Canada has not been at war since 1945, with the Germans, and we've decidedly cut the insurance for people. That's exactly why Vladimir Putin does that in Russia—to avoid accountability for war and to reduce the insurance he has to pay his soldiers. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you for your testimony and also for your service.

I'd now like to give the floor to Mr. Blake Richards for six minutes.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Thanks for being with us today, and thank you for your service to our country.

In your opening remarks, you had a bit of an opportunity to indicate the difference between active or wartime service and special duty service in terms of what it means when you come home. I want to make sure it's really clear. What is the difference operationally on the ground? When you go to serve, if there's this designation of special duty service versus wartime or active service, does it change anything about the service you do on the ground, the operational service on the ground?

[Kevin (Sammy) Sampson]

Thank you very much for that question. That's a great question. The answer is that legally on the ground, an officer of Canada, once he has soldiers who have been placed on active service, is allowed to make the most difficult decisions with their lives. We are asked to do things from time to time. If we're in a combat arms profession, it might be to go take that location away from the Taliban. Some of us are going to die, but we're going. That legislation forces us to go.

On the ground, that legislation doesn't change anything. The fact that we get 20% insurance and we're on special duty service is not of interest to the Taliban. They don't care that we're being paid less insurance. They don't care that there's what is basically a labour issue over how many rights and freedoms a Canadian soldier has on the ground. At the tip of the spear, where people are interacting with enemy combatants—which could be Rwandan genocidaires, Iraqi soldiers from the war, the Taliban or ISIS—the orders of the commander on the ground are expected to be followed, and we are expected to follow them.

There is no discernible difference in the labour from a legal perspective. We do exactly the same thing. You just pay us less in insurance when we get injured doing it.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

You still put your life on the line in exactly the same way. You still risk life and limb. You still do what's asked of you by your country. The difference is what your country does for you when you come home or if you don't come home.

[Kevin (Sammy) Sampson]

That's absolutely right. Yes, sir. We're very proud to serve Canada. We're very proud to wear the Canadian flag on our shoulders. What happens when we come home is that the Canadian people and the Canadian government have basically taken advantage of the most vulnerable members of our society, which are injured veterans.

You've taken advantage of the system that we're not allowed to argue with. We're not allowed to argue against our generals and tell them they're wrong. We don't have that capacity. We are the only employee base within the Government of Canada that has no labour relations group sticking up for them. We have to come here 30 years later and fight for our rights.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

You have people like you. I see Michael McGlennon, who's been a big part of advocating for this, sitting in the room with us today. There are guys like Harold Davis and many others, including even a former prime minister, the late Brian Mulroney, who have been advocating for this change to be made.

Why do you think it hasn't been done?

[Kevin (Sammy) Sampson]

It's all about money. When we look at it purely from a numerical perspective, when you're making 40% of what your peer makes, in order to get you up to the level that your peer makes, it will take a 150% increase in benefits. I completely understand. First off, once we resolve the Gulf War, which the government calls a war but which wasn't one, there will be other missions. Being a veteran of seven missions, I'm getting ready for the next one. The next one is Rwanda, a mission the Government of Australia has already classified as “warlike”.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Is your understanding different from mine? Would this actually be that difficult to do? To my understanding—and correct me if you think I'm wrong—the Minister of National Defence could simply make this designation change tomorrow essentially.

[Kevin (Sammy) Sampson]

Yes, sir. First off, I think when we look at that, we have to look at the problem, the entire problem. It's the absence of a mission classification system that makes sense. I'm going to explain to you very quickly where the problem is.

We went to Afghanistan and fought the Taliban, and you called it a war. We went to Mali and fought ISIS, who were more dangerous than the Taliban, and you called it peacekeeping. That right there should cause questions. First off, from my perspective, these agencies are nothing more than contracting agencies for foreign affairs to bring their soldiers in.

The Government of Canada called what we had in Mali a multi-dimensional peacekeeping force, which is essentially, from a legal perspective, identical to what we had in Afghanistan in every way. We were fighting insurgency. We were just doing it with a blue hat instead of a green hat. Right at the core, sir, we need a mission classification system that people understand, even the veterans, because right now veterans don't even understand what kinds of missions they're being asked to do.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I agree with you. There's no question that we need to recognize the service for what it actually is. If you want to fight a war, it should be recognized as such. We do need a proper classification system.

What's missing here? Is it just the political will?

[Kevin (Sammy) Sampson]

Once you classify a system, then you have to follow it.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Right.

[Kevin (Sammy) Sampson]

When you have to follow the system, then you inevitably start paying more insurance for wartime service. Wartime service—

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Right. What's preventing it from happening, though?

[Kevin (Sammy) Sampson]

Money. I will very specifically point at the people who are stopping it from happening, and it is the executive level of the Department of National Defence. Most veterans will sit and think that it's members of Parliament who are short-changing the veterans. Unfairly, you have been on the hook for the reduction in our insurance rates for the past 20 years.

However, it's quite clear, especially when we talk about our 2% NATO, and Canada says, “We're paying 2% because we put 1.4% in DND and 0.6% in veterans.” That's where the money is. If they want to stay inside of that range, they're never going to increase that number. That's the problem; it's the fact that our commitment to NATO includes our injured veterans, and it will never go over 2% GDP.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Thank you. This was a really good starting place to this step.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you so much.

Now let's go to Mr. Wilson Miao for six minutes, please.

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witness, Sammy, for being here today. I also would like to acknowledge Mike in the room, especially your career and your service to Canada throughout these years.

I understand there's a notable difference between the terminology “wartime service” and “special duty service”. Currently, under the Pension Act and the Veterans Well-being Act, what is the impact on the long-term care that our veterans will be receiving?

[Kevin (Sammy) Sampson]

That's a great question.

When veterans talk about “disability benefits”, we are primarily talking about the single and sole benefit that every veteran gets. There is only one. That is the monthly disability tax-free injury benefit. In the context of wartime service, that's $3,000. That's the maximum amount. It's a $3,000 tax-free amount of money that if you are 100% incapacitated, you will receive $3,000 tax free.

Some of the really important pieces about that are that it doesn't show up in your taxes. It also doesn't show up in family court. It can't be divided in divorce. That means it's tied to the individual because it's compensation from the government for your injury during active service. For that piece, it stays with you no matter what. No matter where you go, that's always your piece for your injury.

In the context of the Veterans Well-being Act, they've reduced that number to $1,200. Mathematically, that is at the 40% number, which I've indicated. They originally started at 20%. They were giving $600 a month. They increased it to $1,200, which is 40% compared to the wartime service pension. Right away we see significant disparity between the two pension systems.

I keep leaving them out, but the RCMP as well has that system for a reason. They chose to keep that system when the government tried to force them onto our system. They chose that system because it's a better system.

That monthly disability benefit is by far the most contentious piece of data when it comes to veterans. Again, a German bullet pays $3,000. A Taliban bullet pays $1,200.

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

Thank you for sharing that.

Sammy, you mentioned that some of the members getting deployed may not understand whether or not they're deployed under a wartime service or service; active service or service. Can you share with the committee the experience of the members deployed under the National Defence Act, under section 31 and section 33.

[Kevin (Sammy) Sampson]

Okay. There are a bunch of moving parts in your question. I'm going to write them down.

The difference between section 31 and section 33 is one step back from active service and then eventually wartime service. I'll bring it all the way back to talk about it further. Section 31 of the National Defence Act is “Active Service” and section 33 of the National Defence Act is “Service”. Ninety-five per cent of a soldier's career, a navy person's career or an air person's career will be spent in service and going home to their mothers, fathers, families and kids, playing on sports teams and working nine to five.

Workplace safety is a factor in service. Someone is given a task and it's dangerous. When you're only performing service, workplace safety kicks in and you can refuse the task. One of the biggest examples I use for a search and rescue technician is that of sitting on a ramp and getting ready to jump out over the Labrador Sea to save a mariner's life from a ship in a storm. That member of the search and rescue team is on service. That person ultimately has the choice to jump out of that plane and save that person's life or to say that it's too dangerous. That person retains choice.

In the context of active service, I have been in situations where you are simply given the four-finger point and you are told that you will do this, and you have no other choice but to go off and do it. You don't bring up safety and you don't bring up risk of death. You don't bring up anything. That is the difference between service and active service. It's one word: choice.

When you're placed on active service, there's a gray area. Does the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom supersede the National Defence Act's section 31, or does section 31 supersede the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? That is the question that plays out in the field. When a commander gives you an order, you don't bring up the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because you don't have any. When a commander orders you to do some of the most difficult tasks that you can imagine, you do them.

That's an explanation of service versus active service.

You asked a question regarding people who don't understand the type of mission they're on. Everybody already understands that they're not on wartime service because the government never gives it without a fight. Clearly, that's why we're here.

The problem with not having a mission classification system means that when you're put on special duty service and you're sent somewhere and it's given a name like “multi-dimensional peacekeeping mission”, it could be lost on the soldier as to exactly what it is they're doing. That happened to me in Rwanda. We were in Rwanda and we didn't know whether we were on a blue beret mission or a green beret mission. We didn't know if we were there to save people's lives or to take people's lives. It was confusing for a solid 30 days. Having no mission classification system is really key.