Evidence of meeting #103 for Veterans Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was war.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Wow. This has been very interesting. Thank you again for testifying.
I want to ask you two questions and then give you the very limited amount of time I have to answer them.
The first question is on mission classification. What can MPs do to help? What do you think would be helpful? That's one question.
The other thing I heard you say repeatedly in your testimony was about money. Why aren't they spending the money? My question to you is this: Can Canada afford this?
Kevin (Sammy) Sampson
Thank you very much, Ms. Blaney. That's a great question.
If the Canadian government can afford to take billions of injury dollars away from its most vulnerable Canadians who served for them, it can certainly afford to give them back. That is the only answer I have. If you had properly classified these missions as wartime service and paid people appropriately, we wouldn't be having the discussion about having to turn over billions of dollars to veterans to fix it.
However, I say to you that if the Government of Canada is strong enough to take money from injured veterans who can't fight for themselves, it is certainly strong enough to pay for those people when they're caught doing bad things.
My answer to you is yes. I'll remind you that we had one million World War I and two million World War II veterans, and we have the RCMP veterans who have always been paid this benefit since the beginning of time. If Canada could afford to pay for them since the 1900s, there's no reason why 40,000 Afghan veterans, 40,000 Bosnia veterans and 400 Rwanda veterans and so on, who were all placed on active service and forced by the elected officials of this country to go to a foreign country and put their lives at risk....
Come on. I don't think I'm saying anything that's unfair or unjust. If the government has been doing it, it can continue to do it. It has a lack of will to pay up. It should have thought of that before it gave veterans' money away to other agencies within Canada. Right...?
Thank you.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Exactly. For the classification, I really like the model that you gave us from Australia.
As MPs, what do you think are the next steps for us to take?
Kevin (Sammy) Sampson
I think there should be some selective outrage here over the fact that we are one of the most bureaucratic nations in the world, and we put a label on everything. We do. We have a process. We sell those processes internationally. They're a big deal.
The fact that the Government of Canada has yet to put a label on its missions to accurately define them for Canadians is a big issue, and the fact that you want to help is really inspiring for me. I really enjoy speaking to members of Parliament. You are helpful, but we're up against the Department of National Defence. Somebody has to go into the Department of National Defence and tell them how things are going to go. Typically, that takes a lot of work from Parliament. That takes bills and laws and so forth.
I'd be happy to share with you a very simple mission classification system, which would help you, as politicians, understand what we're asking Canadian soldiers to do. I'll just ask some very quick questions of the floor.
The people who are in Latvia right now, serving the Canadian government, when they get attacked by Russians with an onslaught of missiles and rockets and bombs, will they be at war? Are they going to be under wartime service? I bet you that it's going to feel like it really quick. There is no process to fix this. The process is fixing the executive level of the Department of National Defence and what I refer to as “toxic white male behaviour”, where they basically subjugate everything.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Thank you, Mr. Sampson.
Now let's go to Mrs. Wagantall.
You have five minutes for your questions.
Conservative
Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
Thank you so much, Chair.
I do thank you, Sammy. We're learning a lot. It's a lot to parse through, but I definitely appreciate your frankness with us.
I just want to comment, though. You had mentioned that there was no interaction with the House of Commons after 1994. Is that accurate? I just want to draw attention to the fact that as Canadian fighter jets—and I had to look this up—flew over hostile Libyan airspace, all four political parties put aside pre-election posturing for a few hours on Monday to support Canada's role in the mission to contain a Libyan stronghold that was held by Gadhafi. We were compelled to intervene, both by a moral duty and by duty to NATO and to the United Nations. The former defence minister, Peter MacKay, told that to the House of Commons, opening up debate on a motion supporting the deployment. The Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc unanimously supported our Conservative motion. Then, there was more discussion about the fact that, with Afghanistan and things, we need to be aware and engaged on those things. One thing I will take away from what you said today is that we're failing at that, and we need to see our government in the House of Commons engaged in what our armed forces are doing.
Cathy Wagantall
I have one question for you, and it's around a comment that came to us from the analyst. You did petitions, and he indicates that the main argument against the petition regarding the Persian Gulf, in making the requests that you are, is that if the designation “wartime service veterans” is extended to the Persian Gulf veterans, it should also be extended to all post-Korean war veterans who were deployed, under UN resolution or otherwise, in a theatre of war without Canada's being at war per se, including the 40,000 veterans of the Afghan mission.
In the response—because they always have to give a response to a petition—the Minister of National Defence stated, “Applying these categories is not meant to signal greater or lesser respect for the service of members and Veterans, nor are such categories indicative of a lesser degree of risk on the part of those deployed.”
When I hear that, they're not telling us why they're doing it. They're just simply saying, “No, no, this isn't in any way showing any disrespect.” I don't even know where to go with that. What was it like when you read these responses? That has to be something that gives you the energy to continue on.
Kevin (Sammy) Sampson
First off, on the question about following parliamentary process in section 32 since 1994, I did make a point in saying—or I will, if I wasn't clear, make a point now—that the Library of Parliament document, PRB 00-06E, says a number of things about why you don't know anything about our military operations. In the conclusion, it specifically states that members of Parliament “are not interested in defence [related issues]”. That is the conclusion of this document. This was written—
Conservative
Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
[Inaudible—Editor] because I wouldn't think that's true.
Kevin (Sammy) Sampson
Again, I'm using their words. The conclusion is that members of Parliament are not interested in defence-related issues. Okay. I suggest DND has made it that way.
What this document does state is that it is the Liberal Party that is not following parliamentary process in observing section 32 as a rule of law. It is just the Liberal Party.
The document I discussed earlier, “Rwanda: Involvement of Parliament”.... They began hiding missions in 1994. Again, it's not just Rwanda. They also hid the Medak Pocket at the exact same time in Yugoslavia. They hid two Canadian missions. This went to the Liberal Party. This went to the 35th Parliament, with Jean Chrétien and the Bloc Québécois in opposition. There was no business continuity in the House, as the Conservatives had been reduced to two. It was very easy to manipulate parliamentary process to be something completely different.
Conservative
Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
Thank you so much. I appreciate that.
You talked about Rwanda. You also briefly mentioned Somalia. We know there was supposed to be an inquiry into the whole issue around mefloquine and its impact on our elite Canadian airborne. That didn't happen. I'm tying that in as something that just—
Kevin (Sammy) Sampson
Yes.
What I'd say to this, Mrs. Wagantall, is that, at the time, the Canadian government was answering questions from members of Parliament. You may remember the generals being on the hot seat. It was one of the best days for us soldiers—watching the generals getting grilled by members of Parliament and being told exactly who was in charge. You are in charge, not the generals.
While that was going on, they were hiding and doing worse things than what happened in Somalia. They were hiding an entire mission from the Canadian government. Even while they were standing in front of you in committee and saying, “We're telling you the truth on everything”, they were still lying to you and hiding things from you. They have continued to hide things from you.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
I'm sorry, Mrs. Wagantall, but you're over the five minutes.
The last member who's going to intervene is Mr. Sean Casey for five minutes.
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Sampson, for your service and for your very powerful and clear testimony here today.
I've been listening to the exchange over the last hour, and the message I'm getting is that the principal issue is the disparity the classifications have caused in the $3,000 monthly disability tax-free allowance for total incapacity.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Secondly, it's the death benefit carry-over associated with that. Then there is the not-insignificant issue of commemoration, which is why you have a medal from Kuwait on your right side and not your left. Underlying it all is the disrespect felt by those who have been identified differently than having done wartime service.
That's what I take from it. My questions will be centred on those four things. If I'm missing one, please include that in your first answer.
The monthly disability tax-free amount is for 100% incapacity, and the determination of “incapacity” is one made by Veterans Affairs to determine how much of the $3,000 a month someone with wartime service gets, or how much of the $1,200 a month folks in special duty service get. Is that right?
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Okay. Has the $3,000 a month changed over time? Has it always been $3,000 and $1,200?
Kevin (Sammy) Sampson
When I use the term $3,000, it's a rough number. It's actually a little bit higher. The same thing with the $1,200 figure. The 100% level is roughly around $3,000. What veterans get under the special duty service is 40% of that, which is $1,200.
Your numbers are accurate. Your understanding as to how those funds get awarded is accurate. Veterans Affairs Canada looks at your shoulder and gives you 15%, and then you get 15%. You can't go higher than 100%. You will never make more than that total amount, either $1,200 or $3,000, regardless. .
In the context of the wartime service amount, I haven't been completely honest with you because there's more money that wartime service veterans get automatically. If you have a wife and a child, you're awarded another $500 or $600 for your wife—and you'll have to excuse me, I don't know the exact numbers—and roughly half of that for your child. In the end, if you're a husband who goes to war or a wife who goes to war, if you have a spouse and a child, and if you get injured, your children and your spouse are automatically compensated by the government.
Today, you have to go fight for spousal compensation because your wife has to care for you. You have to fight with government to get that, where, under the wartime service, that came automatically. You don't have to fight for any additional money for your kids. Special duty service doesn't care. Wartime service will pay you an additional amount for every child.
Why is this important? As a Rwanda veteran, there are many times when I tried to take my daughter to see shows like Disney on Ice, and I couldn't even get out of the house. There was something bothering me, or there was stress or whatever it might be. I'm not a feeble person. I cut wood for a hobby. I get out and do things. The idea that I wasn't able to take my daughter to see Disney on Ice, that's a big deal. I'm not compensating her, but the $200 tickets that I lost because of the fact that I have psychological issues tied to Rwanda, that's where that comes in handy.
Giving your wife or your partner some additional money so that they can go to a spa, rather than constantly worrying about having to pay all the bills, figure this out, figure that out because you might be in a vegetative state or incapacitated because of your injury.... Under the old act, they used to get money for that. Under the new act, either we don't get any money or we have to fight for years and years with extensive delays to get that money.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Thank you very much, Mr. Casey.
Now it's over. I'd like, on behalf of members of the committee and myself, to say thank you, Mr. Sampson, for your testimony. I'm pretty sure you will stay in touch because we're going to have more witnesses on that study.
Colleagues, I'm going to suspend the meeting and to go in camera right after that. I'll suspend the meeting for about two or three minutes.
[Proceedings continue in camera]