Veterans Affairs Committee on Oct. 7th, 2024

[Pierre Tessier]

Mr. Chair, I would like to correct something.

Under the Pension Act, anyone who applied for a disability pension before April 1, 2006, would have been covered through the Pension Act. It's not necessarily that one act covers only war service veterans; it covers all veterans who applied previous to April 1, 2006, and any subsequent claims they would have. Anybody who applied after April 1, 2006, would have been covered through the Veterans Well-being Act.

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

I'll rephrase my question.

We have some Gulf War veterans here. Do those veterans get the same benefits as veterans of previous conflicts? Do they get the same amounts for the same injuries?

[Pierre Tessier]

I'll go back to the premise of the piece, which is that the VAC legislation has changed over the years. Even up to 2006, the Pension Act would have had a number of changes over its lifetime since the Second World War.

The Pension Act and the disability pension itself covered economic and non-economic factors in one pension, whereas the Veterans Well-being Act that came into force in 2006, superseding the Pension Act, is a broader approach to veterans' care and benefits, based on the needs of the veteran, and facilitates the transition to civilian life.

There was a reason that there were advocates for the new well-being act. It includes additional financial benefits. The two are separate in the way they're applied. They're different acts. It includes disability benefits, rehabilitation services, health services, educational assistance, continuing care and quality of life.

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

Mr. Tessier, I really like you, but am I to understand that ensuring fairness would require a bill to amend the Pension Act and the Veterans Well-being Act? What we've been hearing here for weeks is that there's no fairness.

[Pierre Tessier]

Yes, the act itself would have to be amended.

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

So things aren't fair right now, and the act would have to be amended to change that.

[Pierre Tessier]

Any changes to benefits impacting veterans, including those who have been within current designated SDAs regarding the current operations, would need a decision by Parliament, and they would require analysis and consultation. It does not mean that one is better than the other. They are different, and they were put in place for different reasons.

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

Thank you, Mr. Tessier.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Desilets.

Before I go to Ms. Blaney, I'd like to make a comment. I've been listening to the questions, and I get the sense that folks around the table want to dig a little deeper into this issue.

Mr. Tessier, you talked about April 2006 and the benefits and all that, whether for veterans or for the Department of National Defence. There's something here we aren't managing to sort out, so if you have any documents you can send the committee to support our study, that would be helpful. We still have some time left, so maybe we'll figure it out by the end of the meeting.

With that, I'd like to invite Ms. Blaney to ask questions for six minutes.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate your intervention.

I have several questions.

I want to start by saying I feel like I'm finally getting a grasp on it, and then suddenly, I am completely lost again.

My first question is more of a request than a question, and it's for Mr. Tessier.

To come back to what I'm trying to get clarity on, could you provide to the chair a chart so that we could look at the detailed difference between a Korean War veteran and a Persian Gulf veteran who are both filing for the same benefits? I heard my colleague use the example of the loss of a leg earlier.

Could you include the amount of each of the benefits? What I mean by the amount of the benefit is the financial value of each of those benefits. What we're hearing very clearly from the Persian Gulf veterans is that there's a distinct difference. What I need to understand is where that difference is. I've heard some members of this committee say that the only difference they see is the access to long-term care beds.

I want to know what the benefits are that they get and what the dollar amount is, even if it's a range. Could you let us know what part is taxable and what is not taxable, and what each veteran would have to do to have their claim adjudicated and appealed, if necessary?

Is that something you could do for us?

[Pierre Tessier]

I'd be happy to provide that documentation to the committee.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you. That would be extremely helpful.

My next request of you, because I know you're such a kind man, is for another document.

Do you have a document that describes for people like us what the difference is between the Pension Act and the Veterans Well-being Act?

I think that's probably a question that's very hard and complex, and it will take a lot of time to answer. Is there a document we could look at that compares them that you could send to the committee?

[Pierre Tessier]

Definitely we can provide a document that compares both.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you. That would be really helpful for us as we do this study.

I'm going to come to National Defence now.

First of all, I want to thank all the members in uniform in this room for their current service. I deeply appreciate it.

I represent 19 Wing, here in the Comox area. I have a lot of love for the people who serve there, because they take really good care of me and have certainly taught me a lot.

I heard that the legislation is the issue. I'm hoping you can help me understand this. I know the Korean veterans fought a fight very similar to the one we're seeing the gulf veterans fight right now. When they were added to wartime service, was it through a legislative method? If it was not, by what method were the Korean veterans added to wartime service?

[MGen Erick Simoneau]

Mr. Chair, maybe I'll pass the first portion of the question to my historian for the why.

What I could tell you up front is that the legislation was passed in 1985. At that time, we had three wars—World War I, World War II and Korea. That piece of legislation encompassed those three wars.

Is there anything you want to add, Dr. Graham?

[Dr. Sean Graham, Historian, Directorate of History and Heritage, Department of National Defence]

Yes. The designation of ”special duty area” dates to the sixties. The first reference to special duty area comes in 1965.

A challenge with Korea specifically is that the veterans of Korea were included in the war veterans acts prior to that, and then the special duty area was declared in the 1960s. We see multiple changes to that in various orders in council.

It was done through orders in council prior to a change in legislation, which provided the authority to the Minister of National Defence.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you. That's really helpful to have on the record.

I'm going to ask National Defence again and let you guys decide who's the wisest person to answer, because you know your expertise far better than I do.

What we're hearing very clearly is that there is a concern that the way the terminology is used does not necessarily fit the task that is given.

Is the term “war service” being phased out? We have the special duty service. Is there any sort of movement or exploration about doing something around terminology like “active service”?

What we've heard very clearly from the veterans who have served and who are the experts that what they were tasked to do was incredibly dangerous and incredibly impactful on their lives, and they're not feeling that recognition after that service. One of the veterans even said that they did different types of service and that this was very much active service and was not special duty service.

I'm wondering, in terms of the terminology, if there is there any exploration about broadening that. Are we going to be using the term “war service” any longer, or is that something we're changing?

[MGen Erick Simoneau]

Mr. Chair, I'll make my best attempt to answer this important question.

It presumes that the legislation is an issue here, which I don't think it is. The two pieces of legislation are distinct in their own right. The current legislation actually provides, from a serving CAF member's perspective, all the required authorities to our minister to actually declare a special duty service. That then clinches that a committee will look at the risk factors and the hardships, from which will derive proper compensation, benefits and recognition, so all the tools are there to properly support CAF members when deployed.

The fact that we don't use “wartime service” in the current legislation doesn't negate any level of effort, from an official's perspective, to support the members. We feel that all the tools are there to actually provide for and support our members.

I hope that helps.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you very much, Ms. Blaney.

Let's go back to Mr. Blake Richards for five minutes, please.

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

Thanks.

I have a quick follow-up question.

I think it was you, Major-General, who mentioned the legislation in 1985, which would have mentioned only World War I, World War II and Korea, as you said.

What piece of legislation was that?

In order to accomplish what the Persian Gulf veterans and the Afghanistan veterans would like, would it be as simple as adding those conflicts, or others that might qualify, to that piece of legislation? Is the fix that simple?

[MGen Erick Simoneau]

Mr. Chair, I did mention 1985, which is the Pension Act. It has now been superseded or supplanted by the Veterans Well-being Act, for various reasons. I'm not the expert to dive into that.

What I can tell you is that with the Veterans Well-being Act, the Minister of National Defence now has proper authorities to approve a special duty operation or area, which, as I mentioned earlier, clinches the whole analysis of risk and hardship to provide for our members.

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

Thank you. That helps.

I'd like to turn to Veterans Affairs. It's probably you, Ms. Meunier. I think you're the head of the commemoration section.

We know from the last meeting we had that the Minister of National Defence had not met with the Persian Gulf veterans association, although we understand he has now reached out to them. Interestingly enough, it was after being called out for not meeting with them. This is good, but it's sad that it took that for it to happen. I know your minister met with the Persian Gulf association.

Can you tell me how many times either you, as head of the commemoration section, or other senior members of Veterans Affairs have met with Persian Gulf Veterans?

[Amy Meunier]

We've formally met, sitting face to face, three or four times, or maybe five. I speak to some representatives weekly. I'm in constant contact. I know my director general of commemorations has had conversations, as well as the former associate deputy minister and our deputy minister. I might not be able to put an exact number on that.

We've been in constant communication.

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

Would it be fair to say that there have been dozens of communications, or more?

[Amy Meunier]

Yes, I think that's fair.