Veterans Affairs Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2024

[Harold Davis]

On the process that is lacking right now and that we see.... As Mike was saying, it's not there. It's there for battle honours, but it's not there for anything else, except for the policy. Where in the policy does DND turn around and say they'll make you this type of veteran or they'll make you that type of veteran? If it's taken out of their hands and, as Mike says, you have a committee, the committee doesn't have to be a public committee. They can sit anywhere. If they come out with a recommendation that this is what that service should be recognized as, well, then, who are we to turn around and argue after that?

Until that point, show me in the policy where it says that I'm not.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you.

I have a minute left. I'll pass it over to my colleague Anita Vandenbeld.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you.

This is actually a machinery of government question, because I think the political will is here on all sides. In terms of the machinery of government, the cenotaph is under Canadian Heritage. Commemorations are under Veterans Affairs. The designation is under National Defence, but would normally have been done at the time. We're looking at coordination between government departments and inertia within the system because there is no policy.

We all know that it takes a lot longer to create a policy, particularly in a department that may believe that it is actually not their jurisdiction, with a sort of back-and-forth between different departments. Is this really what you think we're facing?

[Harold Davis]

Well, to me the policy is this: DND has had a lot of years to make the policy, and they keep making decisions without a policy that we can find. You're saying it takes a lot of years to do a policy. Guess what? They've had a lot of years to do a policy. DND should be able to produce the policy.

[Mike McGlennon]

We've been the recipient of National Defence responses to e-petitions and written policy letters that are sort of canned responses. They skate down the middle and don't say anything. They quote policy that, in our opinion, doesn't even exist. They've not been challenged. They've been allowed to get away with it. They've not been forced to produce it.

We're just two simple little soldiers. Quite frankly, we can't make that happen. You guys need to make that happen. Please make it happen. If we find out what I think is there, it's going to create a lot of problems

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

You've done an amazing job in articulating this. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you so much.

As you know, there will be more meetings on that subject. I'm pretty sure you'll be following our meetings, including with veterans who are in the audience.

Mr. Harold Davis and Mr. Mike McGlennon from the Persian Gulf Veterans of Canada, president and vice-president, I'd like to thank you.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Go ahead, Mr. Richards.

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

From looking at the clock, it looks like we have over 15 minutes. Could we not do another short round of questions?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

It's possible. It's up to you guys, if you want to go on.

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

The witnesses have come all this way. We might as well use all the time we have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Okay. We have 15 minutes, so we'll have a second round. We'll start with two interventions of five minutes and two interventions of two and a half minutes.

Mr. Blake Richards, the floor is yours for five minutes.

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

Thanks, Chair.

Today we've talked a lot about a policy that may or may not be required. Whether one exists or not, I don't know, nor do you. You've made it really clear that you don't know whether one exists. There may be a policy and there may not be. There may need to be one to get this done and there may not.

For me, it boils down to this: If there's a policy required, the person who would be responsible for making that policy would be the Minister of National Defence. If a policy does exist, the person responsible for making a decision under that policy would be the Minister of National Defence. Either way, that's kind of where the buck stops here, it seems.

I get that you've had meetings with the Minister of Veterans Affairs, who says she's had conversations with the minister, but that hasn't gone anywhere. You've had meetings with other members of the government who say they support you. What they've done about that to actively support you I don't know. Maybe you do.

The bottom line is that we have a Minister of National Defence who won't meet with you guys, and it's his decision as to whether this happens, whether he has to apply a policy or whether he has to create a policy. In my mind, there are only two things that could be the case here. One, there is some barrier that none of us seem to be aware of that is preventing him from being able to do that, or two, he just doesn't want to do it. I don't know which one it is.

Is there some barrier that you are aware of that is preventing the minister from doing this? I'm not aware of one. Are you aware of any barriers that may be preventing this?

[Mike McGlennon]

Thank you for that question.

There are two things that we believe exist. There's a bias out there that we hear about often enough: “You guys didn't have any casualties, so you're not a war.” That would be one.

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

That's not a real barrier. That's someone's opinion or thought on why they wouldn't want to do it.

[Mike McGlennon]

It's a bias.

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

It's not a barrier, though.

[Mike McGlennon]

Right, so I guess part two of that, then, would be.... You heard from Sammy Sampson on September 19. He talked about the financial deltas between the Pension Act and the well-being act. Wartime service is embedded in the Pension Act but not in the well-being act.

If there were changes done, as we understand the process, it's legal, which means that then you need an act. Because there may be money involved, you need royal assent, as we understand the process. Even if we come to wanting to effect a change, it's going to take a while.

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

Yes, and if that is accurate, then that's a legitimate barrier. It would be interesting to hear the thoughts of our analyst on that.

I'm not sure if I can ask the analyst a question now, but do you think that barrier actually exists? Is there a need here to change policies in order to have financial benefits and get this done?

[Jean-Rodrigue Paré, Committee Researcher]

To my knowledge, for financial benefits, the only difference between being a wartime service veteran, as designated by Veterans Affairs Canada, is long-term care. That's the only difference I could find.

The other difference is wartime service. I haven't found anything in the legislation defining what that means. For special duty operations, there's a clear process for that, but there's no special definition of—

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

Thank you.

It sounds to me like that barrier may not actually exist either. It really comes down to the will to do it.

I guess my next question would come to this. You've had meetings with MPs of all parties, but obviously the Liberal members you have met with have the ability—they're part of the government—to go to the minister and try to encourage this to happen.

When you've had these meetings, I know that many members—probably almost every member, if not all members—of this committee have indicated their support. Have they committed to take it to the Minister of National Defence? If they have, have they reported back to you what the results of those conversations were?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

You have 20 seconds, guys.

[Mike McGlennon]

We have visited more than 40 MPs and 10 senators. Party affiliation was irrelevant to us. We just wanted time to sit before someone, make the business case and cross our fingers that at some point we would reach a tipping point and get some assistance in helping us move this issue down the football field.

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

I guess my point, though, is that Liberal MPs could actually go to their minister. I would really encourage you to encourage them to do that and report back what they hear from that minister, because at the end of the day it sounds to me like the roadblock is right there.