Evidence of meeting #108 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 benefits.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Grant McLaughlin
Sean Bruyea  Retired Captain, Air Force Intelligence Officer, As an Individual
Christopher Banks  Sergeant (Retired), As an Individual
Michael Blois  Lawyer, Veteran, Canadian Afghanistan War Veterans Association
Rebecca Patterson  Senator, Ontario, CSG
Colonel  Retired) Mark Gasparotto (Afghanistan Veteran Combat Sub-unit Commander, As an Individual
Lieutenant-Colonel  Retired) Dean Tremblay (Afghanistan Veteran Combat Sub-unit Commander, As an Individual

Noon

Lawyer, Veteran, Canadian Afghanistan War Veterans Association

Michael Blois

The time frames that Veterans Affairs sets out are on the completion of an application, which includes all of the medical documentation that usually is sourced by only the veteran and provided to Veterans Affairs. On completion of that—and it is determined solely by Veterans Affairs when that's done—the time frame is 16 weeks for Veterans Affairs to make a decision on an initial application for benefits. For somebody who is putting in their application for the first time, saying they were either injured in the service and it was years ago or whenever, that 16-week time frame is what Veterans Affairs tells the veteran, and we know it's never met or very rarely met, and veterans wait years. The problem that veterans run into is that you cannot get benefits and treatment for your medical condition that you're putting your application in for until that decision has been made by Veterans Affairs.

Noon

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg

Thank you very much.

The last question is from Ms. Blaney.

Please go ahead for one minute.

Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC

Thank you.

My question is for Sean. We've heard testimony that the Pension Act covers economic losses. Do you have any thoughts that you want to share about that?

Noon

Retired Captain, Air Force Intelligence Officer, As an Individual

Sean Bruyea

The government has been pushing that narrative ever since they created the new veterans charter in 2006. I would just bring us back to the words of John Todd, who was the designer of the Pension Act in 1919 and was one of the first three pension commissioners.

He wrote:

Those who give public service do so not for themselves alone but for the society of which they are a part. Therefore, each citizen should share equally in the suffering which war brings to his nation. War may make citizens suffer in property or in person. Compensation for property loss lies outside the province of a war pension.

A war pension does not compensate for economic loss through destruction of property, or interruption of business. A war pension compensates only for detriment, bodily or mental, to the persons of those who serve their country in war.

I would also add the small matter of the billion-dollar lawsuit that was based upon deducting Pension Act payments from income, the Manuge case, and the final payments in 2013, wherein the courts recognized that the Pension Act was not for income loss.

Noon

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg

Thank you.

We're going to stop right here for the first panel.

On behalf of members of the committee, I'd like to say thank you for your testimony, service and continued advocacy.

We have heard from two witnesses today who appeared as individuals: Sean Bruyea, a retired captain and Air Force intelligence officer, and Christopher Banks, a retired sergeant.

We also heard from someone from the Canadian Afghanistan War Veterans Association, Michel Blois, who is a lawyer and veteran.

Once again, I want to thank those who have been with us for the first part of the meeting, and wish the students in attendance a good afternoon at school.

We will suspend for a few minutes to welcome the next witnesses.

The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg

We will now resume the meeting.

As you know, we are conducting a study on the recognition of Persian Gulf veterans and reviewing wartime service.

For the second part of our meeting, we have a new group of witnesses who are with us in the room.

I would like to welcome our witnesses.

We have with us for the second hour the Honourable Rear-Admiral Rebecca Patterson, senator. As individuals, we have retired Colonel Mark Gasparotto, Afghanistan veteran, combat sub-unit commander, and retired Lieutenant-Colonel Dean Tremblay, Afghanistan veteran, combat sub-unit commander.

As you know, you're going to have five minutes for your opening statement. After that, members of the committee will ask you some questions.

It's my pleasure to ask the Honourable Senator Patterson to start for five minutes.

Rebecca Patterson Senator, Ontario, CSG

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

Good afternoon. For those who may not know me, I'm Senator Rebecca Patterson. Before taking this role, I served as a member of the Canadian Armed Forces for 34 years. I was deployed in various theatres of operation, including the Persian Gulf, Somalia and Afghanistan, providing operational-level medical planning and support to Canadian Armed Forces personnel deployed across the world.

I'm here as an individual and a veteran.

On the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in January 1991, armed conflict broke out in the Persian Gulf. Canada committed one Canadian field hospital to support the British Army's 33rd Field Hospital in support of an anticipated ground war. Less than 24 hours after hostilities broke out, I became a member of 1 Canadian Field Hospital as a critical care nurse. I, along with about 350 other medical personnel of all occupations, signallers, logisticians and a platoon of Royal Canadian Regiment infantry soldiers, was brought to CFB Petawawa in Ontario to conduct pre-deployment training and prepare equipment.

The full complement of the field hospital arrived in Saudi Arabia by mid-February 1991. Due to the rapid evolution of the ground war, along with safety concerns about transporting personnel in a war zone, only a complement to the field hospital, along with our British counterparts, was deployed to the forward location, approximately 40 kilometres from the Saudi-Kuwait-Iraqi border.

The duties of forward-deployed field hospital personnel included surgical and medical treatment of allied soldiers and wounded Iraqi soldiers. Eventually, our RCR platoon was tasked with helping to manage the influx of Iraqi detainees. They were also responsible for escorting wounded Iraqis through the treatment process. We returned home in late March 1991. You can accurately say that 1 Canadian Field Hospital was physically closest to the ground campaign.

Since the adoption of the Statute of Westminster in 1931, Canada has formally declared war only once, back in 1939, when King—on the advice of his Canadian ministers—brought Canada into the Second World War. Therefore, Canadians went to war and de facto became war veterans. Canada has not formally declared war on another nation since the Charter of the United Nations was signed in 1945. Despite this, Canadian military forces have engaged in conflict areas around the world as part of police actions, peacekeeping, peacemaking or any other type of intervention on the direction of Canada.

As Michel Rossignol aptly noted in a 1992 paper prepared for us here in Parliament, the Canadian Forces Act of 1950 allowed the armed forces to be placed on active service by the Governor in Council, advised by the Minister of National Defence, not only when Canada's security was threatened but also when—I'm going to underline this—collective action was taken under the UN charter, NATO or any other collective defence agency. In fact, placing military on active service is done for bureaucratic reasons and for access to benefits. As noted by the Minister of National Defence in 1951, it relates to the application of the insurance principle. That has been very well covered by my predecessors.

From the Cold War to the modern day, placing military forces on active service has been required to ensure they are ready to engage at a moment's notice anywhere conflicts arise around the world. While the “when” to place troops on active service effectively changed with the introduction of that act, it unintentionally created a loophole for future veterans to be ineligible for the same benefits as those who served in active service during the Second World War and eventually Korea.

The next bureaucratic choice was the requirement to designate a theatre of operations as an SDA, as well as consult with the Minister of Veterans Affairs on benefits, and so the Canadians who served in these theatres of operation are not considered war veterans.

We must ask ourselves whether the current definitions and criteria for veterans' benefits and commemorative recognition truly recognize the realities of modern conflict. Canadians have served, been injured and have died on behalf of our country since the Boer War. I ask you whether one death or injury is worth more or less than another, based on time. As yet—you've heard many other fabulous testimonies—we currently have a system with stark differences between how veterans are treated and how they are commemorated, depending on the nature of the conflict they served in and where it took place.

I have a number of recommendations that I will touch on very quickly, then I will conclude.

The first recommendation is to consider a definition of war as a subcategory consideration under “special duty area” within applicable acts and regulations. You've heard about the Pension Act and disequilibrium.

VAC should conduct a study, including the use of a veterans round table, to modernize and harmonize these two acts.

The inequities, as we know, go beyond just the veterans themselves. We heard this committee come forward in 2023 with a push to repeal the “gold digger” clause about marriage over 60. This must continue, because modern veterans live beyond the age of 60 years, and they're independent adults.

Finally, our families also serve. I recommend that we consider them an extension of service and call for the implementation of the 2021 Office of the Veterans Ombudsman's recommendation that mental health treatment benefits be available to family members, in their own right, for conditions related to their allied military service.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your questions.

The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg

Thank you very much.

Now let's go to Colonel Gasparotto for five minutes, please.

Colonel Retired) Mark Gasparotto (Afghanistan Veteran Combat Sub-unit Commander, As an Individual

Good afternoon. Thank you for this opportunity to present my insights on training and, ultimately, commanding Canadian Armed Forces personnel in combat. I was asked to present these insights in order to provide the realities of military service with a particular focus on duty, unlimited liability, fighting spirit and discipline.

The CAF's primary mission is to detect, deter and defend against threats to or attacks on Canada. As such, military personnel are unique as citizens. Once we voluntarily enrol, we are the only ones who are sanctioned to manage violence on behalf of the state and to use force or the threat thereof in the pursuit of national interests and political objectives. Having pulled the trigger and taken several enemies' lives, this is not an abstract concept for me.

To achieve the CAF's unique mission within Canadian society, there are certain professional expectations. I provide my interpretations of four that are most relevant to this testimony.

Duty means the mission comes first, always. Service to Canada before self means that when we enrol, we subordinate ourselves to the team, the unit and the greater good. That means sacrifice, a price paid for by our members willingly—and their families, sometimes unwillingly.

Unlimited liability means the legal requirement for CAF members to accept that in the process of their duties, they may have to risk their lives or the lives of those they lead. I've buried a soldier, and I continue to know more who struggle with physical injuries and mental health conditions, so many of us are still living the sacrifice.

Fighting spirit means we must have a warrior culture and ethos. We must be able to operate across all planes—physical, mental, emotional and spiritual—to close with and destroy the enemy. To quote General Rick Hillier, “We're not the public service of Canada. We're not just another department. We're the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people.” We manage violence on all of your behalf. Discipline and the rule of law means following lawful orders from the chain of command, orders that may put our lives at risk or may require us to injure or kill enemy combatants. Therefore, our great leadership challenge is to prepare ourselves and our people to engage in the grim matters of warfare without losing our humanity.

Now I have an example from combat operations in Kandahar, a so-called “special duty area”.

In summer 2006 the Taliban, with many hundreds of heavily armed soldiers, attempted to seize Kandahar. That threat led to Operation Medusa, Canada's largest combat operation since the Korean War and, at the time, NATO's largest combat operation in its history. While we were equipped with exceptional armoured fighting vehicles, we did not have any breaching assets to defeat the extensive Taliban defences, so we rented yellow civilian bulldozers. My operators thought this was a crazy plan and expressed their concerns based on the obvious significant risks. We mitigated the risks as best as we could and, regardless of the residual dangers, they were ordered to breach the Taliban defences. They had no choice in the matter.

In the end, we were successful. However, one member of my squadron was blown up three times while operating heavy equipment outside the wire, earning him two sacrifice medals for his injuries. His name is Lance Hooper. He's now a warrant officer. To me, by embracing unlimited liability, Lance is the embodiment of duty and of how discipline is the foundation of fighting spirit.

In conclusion, enrolment in the CAF is voluntary. Once enrolled, CAF members must serve until released, in accordance with the regulations; have numerous obligations of service that do not have civilian equivalents; and have an obligation to respect, uphold and obey the chain of command. Training and socialization during times of service are designed to cultivate a habit of obedience and respect for authority, which are essential for conducting effective and efficient military operations during active service.

Combat operations in Kandahar, Afghanistan, cost the lives of many CAF personnel and involved the application of significant violence against a determined enemy. Calling it a “special duty area” rings hollow when judged against the realities on the ground.

The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg

Thank you very much, Mr. Gasparotto.

Now let's go to retired Lieutenant-Colonel Dean Tremblay for five minutes, please.

Lieutenant-Colonel Retired) Dean Tremblay (Afghanistan Veteran Combat Sub-unit Commander, As an Individual

Good afternoon.

Thank you for the invitation to appear before you as a witness to share my experiences as a tactical combat team commander in Afghanistan from September 2008 to April 2009.

Operating from Forward Operating Base Frontenac, which is located slightly north of Kandahar city, my core team was based on an armoured reconnaissance squadron with attachments from the infantry, combat engineers, artillery and other specialists. Our initial core strength was 145 personnel. I emphasize the word “initial” because, sadly, four of my soldiers were killed in action doing what Canada asked them to do.

It was on this occasion that I deployed with these amazing Canadians outside the wire on a daily basis to conduct combat operations.

I would like to quickly highlight two critical takeaways from my experience in Afghanistan that I believe are very relevant to the discussion of active service of Canadian Forces members.

The first is leadership in combat. During my career, I deployed in several missions, each with its own inherent challenges and dangers. For me, being a combat commander in Afghanistan, with all of its complexities and the responsibility for making daily life-and-death decisions, often void of all information, was the most powerful, professional and emotional experience of my life.

We were at war. We were engaged in daily operations against a determined and armed enemy. Every day we were at risk of being targeted, wounded or killed. We were expected to do the same to our enemy, if legally called upon.

My decisions, the way I led and employed my team to achieve our mission, and ultimately the orders I issued to my soldiers would have an immediate as well as a lifelong impact on every single one of them.

In the performance of our mission, we suffered significant casualties. My core team suffered 26% casualties due to enemy action. This included four soldiers killed and 34 seriously injured. Of those, 22 soldiers who were critically wounded were repatriated to Canada. These figures do not begin to reflect those who continue to suffer with seen and unseen injuries many years after our deployment.

To put this into an operational perspective, at staff college, where military officers are trained in operational planning, we used wartime figures that suggest that after a unit has suffered 10% to 15% casualties, it is deemed combat-ineffective and subsequently removed from the front line for reconstitution. In Afghanistan, however, there was no front line. The enemy was all around us. Reconstitution never fully occurred, despite our casualties.

I share these statistics not as a scorecard or to glorify casualties but to highlight the immediate and long-term human impact of war on our people.

We, as leaders, have a very direct and significant responsibility to our personnel as we make life-altering decisions in these unpredictable and dangerous war zones. Leadership is not only about achieving operational or tactical success; it's also about having compassion and enduring commitment to those we are responsible for and accountable to while in the fight and also long afterward. In fact, the health and wellness of our personnel is 100% part of mission success.

The other is unlimited liability. Throughout my years of service to Canada, I proudly accepted unlimited liability, which means I could be lawfully ordered into harm's way under conditions that might lead to loss of life. As regular force members on active service, we never questioned this expectation. When deploying to operations in support of Government of Canada commitments, regardless of the threat environment, unlimited liability remained a constant. We had an obligation to obey lawful orders, but this did not prevent us from asking constructive questions to clarify intent, plan and prepare our teams, or institute important mitigation strategies to de-risk the mission and protect our personnel's health and well-being. Despite all of this, sadly, bad things can still happen.

During my time in Afghanistan, I did receive lawful orders directing my unit to conduct combat missions that put me and my soldiers at risk. Some missions, sadly, resulted in death. Despite these terrible moments, we continued to conduct operations and perform our duty. We did not close shop to escape the dangers that we were faced with on a daily basis.

These difficult times reinforced the importance of trust within our ranks. We had to trust the person to the left and to the right, the chain of command and, by extension, our country and its national institutions, to respect, honour and care for our personnel and their families consistently and meaningfully long after the deployment concluded. The experiences of war are not framed by a start and end date. They are enduring for all members and, by extension, their families.

In closing, I'll say that went through long periods of personal doubt and guilt and significant internal reflection to manage my expectations, my experiences and my decisions; to rationalize the long-term impact of our Afghanistan combat mission on my soldiers and my role, good or bad, in their lives; their reintegration post-deployment; and even their pain. Despite this, I never questioned my role as a leader and the necessity to make difficult decisions, nor did I ever question the necessity of unlimited liability because of operational imperatives, legal obligations and moral expectations.

I am grateful that this committee is focused on this important topic. Thank you for your support to our veterans.

The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg

Thank you very much, Mr. Tremblay.

Now we're going to start the first round of questions of six minutes.

Colleagues, you can split your six minutes.

I invite Mrs. Cathy Wagantall to start the round of questions.

Please go ahead.

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you all. Your testimony is honestly overpowering to me.

I'm going to ask this, first of all, of the gentlemen. I hear the term "war" used often, yet it doesn't exist anymore, according to legislation. That is my understanding, yet as a civilian I would absolutely put what you just described to me in that category. I sense that you as well would put it in that category.

Concerning these responsibilities of duty and unlimited liability and being required as volunteers to obey the chain of command and all of these things, are they somehow defined differently for the circumstances in which you found yourselves in Afghanistan versus previous war scenarios?

LCol (Ret'd) Dean Tremblay

I think Mark alluded to the term "volunteerism". I think that once you sign up for active service, volunteerism ends. You have that commitment and the obligation to operate within the constraints.

One thing that came to mind as you asked that question was that I wanted to highlight three published ethical obligations that we as Canadian Forces members have when in service to the country and deployed on operations. One is to respect the dignity of all persons. That's pretty straightforward, I believe. Another is to serve Canada before self. Mark rightly highlighted that. Another is to obey and support lawful authority. That's the manner in which you operate at all times, be it domestically or abroad, on operations in service to your country.

When you look at those three published and accepted ethical principles, it's quite clear the way that all of our personnel will operate willingly, knowing that they've made that commitment to each other but also to Canadians and the Government of Canada.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

I'll broaden it out from there. I appreciate that what I heard were the repercussions of—

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

Pardon me, Mr. Chair, but there is no interpretation.

The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg

I will make sure—

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

I want to move forward with another question. Is there translation now?

The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg

If I'm speaking in English, do you have any translation yet?

I can see that people can hear me clearly when I am speaking French.

The problem is from English to French.

Mr. Desilets, are you on the right channel?

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

I am told it is working.

The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg

Okay.

Mrs. Wagantall, the clock was stopped, so don't worry. You have more than four minutes left.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

That's awesome. Thank you so much.

You talked about the wounded, those who died in their service, those critically wounded and others. You then shared with us the fact that health and wellness are impacted, truly, for the rest of your life. I have a question I want to ask that is a little sensitive. If you don't want to answer it, that's fine.

Over time, the use of MAID has become more of an awareness within the armed forces. We have heard of soldiers being offered that, even with the clarification that they should not worry and that their families would be taken care of. We've had many take their own lives after coming home. Of course, those circumstances would not have been seen in the same light.

I just need to ask what that brings to your heart and mind in regard to serving your country and coming home and having MAID brought forward.

LCol (Ret'd) Dean Tremblay

I think that when folks deploy to serve their country, they deploy with the belief that they're going to do their job and do what's asked of them, with the mindset that it's their duty and their commitment to Canada. It's their pride in the country and their pride in everything that's related to that. I don't believe they deploy to think about the what-ifs should things go south and go terribly wrong.

I think they deploy with the trust that their colleagues, their leadership and their chain of command—and certainly the institution, the government and the country we represent—support us in what we do. Otherwise, why would we be sent to these different parts of the world?

There's the mindset that if something goes bad on those most terrible days that are unimaginable, they will be taken care of. There's that institutional trust that while we are socialized, if you want to use that term, upon joining the military, you will operate in a certain fashion, with these ethical principles and moral obligations, and you will also have trust in the institution, which extends far beyond the unit you're deploying with. I believe they have that trust in place should those bad moments occur. I think what we're seeing in some of the testimony today is that the trust has been questioned.

Certainly, when you deploy, you know where you're going, generally, and you have that obligation.

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

We've heard a lot at this committee about the challenges of seeing discrepancies between what was in the previous act and the one our veterans are under now. Can you give your perspectives on what has happened in that regard and whether you see it as better or worse?

I'll go to Mark and then Senator Patterson.

Col (Ret'd) Mark Gasparotto

I can only speak for myself and anecdotally, based on conversations I have had with my former squadron or other people I've served with.

Certainly, when I needed help, the help was there through Veterans Affairs. Now, I didn't have a complex case, but I have no complaints about the service I received. I have none whatsoever. I thought it was quite seamless. You probably hear all of the bad stories that come in. I think that paints, unfortunately, a victim narrative that all soldiers are broken. That is not the case by far.

While there are still things that need to be fixed—and I can't speak to exactly what those are—I know there has been a real attempt within the armed forces. What I've seen from Veterans Affairs is there's been a real attempt to address some of those things, understanding that there's probably still a way to go.

In terms of the discrepancies between these various policies, I have not lived the impact of those. Perhaps Senator Patterson could fill in the gap there.