Veterans Affairs Committee on Oct. 10th, 2024

[Sean Bruyea]

In fact, I would agree with you 100% that war is war. I think trying to create different regimes for different periods of conflict just creates confusion in the public. It creates great animosity between veterans, and those sorts of distinctions should not exist. We can maybe distinguish between combat and non-combat, but I would think that would be the degree of distinction.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Desilets.

We will now return to a committee member who is joining us via Zoom.

We have with us Ms. Rachel Blaney.

It's your turn for six minutes. Please go ahead.

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

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all of our witnesses, first of all, for their service to the country and their testimony here today.

I also want to say hello and welcome to all the students. I know that Wilfred's out there. I'll just let you know that your dad said really good things about you.

I'm going to start with Mr. Bruyea.

I really appreciate your testimony and found it quite horrifying to hear that you were diagnosed with jet lag. I'm going to probably never forget that for the rest of my life. Thank you for sharing that.

I want to get one thing clear. Have you sent to the committee the report that you were citing earlier? I just want to make sure that it's been sent to the committee.

[Sean Bruyea]

Do you mean the Parliamentary Budget Officer report, Ms. Blaney?

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

Yes.

[Sean Bruyea]

I will make sure that they get it, but I have not sent it.

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

If you could do that, that would be great. I just want to make sure that the information can be included in the report.

You also talked about animosity between veterans, which I think is one of the challenges that we don't hear enough about. It concerns me greatly, because when you take on that role of service, you want people to feel part of a team. That's part of what it is to serve in the military. For people to feel animosity, I think, is unfortunate.

I want to get a little bit of clarity. You talked about combat and non-combat. I think that one of the challenges that we're hearing really clearly in this study is that those categories are very important and that how they're being dealt with right now is harmful. I'm wondering if you could talk about the combat versus non-combat distinction. Is it your recommendation that this be the change?

[Sean Bruyea]

I would just like to clarify. Do I agree with the distinction? No; I would understand it.

If we take the precedent from World War II, what happened was that in 1946, the Pension Act was changed so that people who originally were merely stationed in Canada were covered under, if you remember, the compensation principle. There was such rancour and misunderstanding about what was going on that the government actually changed the Pension Act and said that all veterans who were stationed back home would be covered under the insurance principle.

If we go to, for instance, 9/11, under the infamous document 1447 that Veterans Affairs has about the insurance principle, they made it so that going forward, all veterans that were on training would be covered under the insurance principle when they were training for an SDA, a special duty area, even during their downtime on weekends.

The fact is that when we join the military, we're training for SDAs from the day we put on that uniform. I really think that there shouldn't be any distinction. I think that the benefits that are given for disability will compensate for that distinction. I think that when all of us are in the military, we're heavily indoctrinated and heavily disabled to re-transition back into civilian life, no matter what our disabilities.

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

Thank you for that.

I keep hearing about the differences between the Pension Act and the Well-being Act. I'm wondering if you could explain that a little bit. What are the economic losses? What are your thoughts on that?

I guess this is the last thing that I would ask. Thank you to the many witnesses for trying to make this clear in my brain. This is a huge issue to wrap my head around, so I really appreciate the patience. Should we do something so that the Pension Act and the Veterans Well-being Act are harmonized so that people who serve together get the same benefits? Is that a solution that we could look at?

[Sean Bruyea]

Certainly.

I think when we compare the benefits, all veterans from basically World War I right up until 2006 were covered under the Pension Act. Prior to that, there were other lifelong pensions in place.

There is one important aspect for a committee that cares about families, spouses and children: They were always compensated separately under the Pension Act. That changed in 2006, and since then, the situation has not improved. There is no extra money for a married person or a person with dependants or a person with children. In order to harmonize the benefits, yes, we know what the costs would be, and Parliament would not be happy about approving that, but it's an easy fix if we ignore the money part. All we have to do is replace the pain and suffering compensation under the Veterans Well-being Act with the Pension Act, and there, it's done.

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

Thank you. That is so helpful.

I want to go to Mr. Banks really quickly.

What could the government be doing to commemorate Persian Gulf and Afghanistan veterans? I think it's really important, because what I hear again and again is this reality of feeling excluded. What do we need to do now with all of the tensions to take that next step?

[Christopher Banks]

I'll speak briefly to the Persian Gulf because, as I said, I'm not a Persian Gulf veteran. When I was doing some research before coming in today, I noticed that there is not a monument in Canada dedicated to the Persian Gulf mission. There are monuments dedicated to smaller missions, but 4,000 Canadians went to the Persian Gulf, and there's no monument. Give them a monument. I mean, here on the Afghanistan side, we're hammering for a monument. Give them a monument too.

There's another thing that I mentioned briefly in my opening statement. I talked about the combat action declaration that is teased every couple of years. We're talking about war service among different generations of veterans. Why not just apply that? That would give the recognition to those who crossed the line, who went outside the line and actually engaged the enemy. We've been talking about it for decades.

I think Mr. Blois was the one who said that commemoration is incredibly easy, and the fact that the government's dragging its feet on it is indicative.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Ms. Blaney.

Colleagues, you know that we have another panel, but I will allow just one question for each group, a question of one minute, to close this panel.

I don't know if Mr. Richards would like to take this minute to ask a question.

Please go ahead, Mr. Richards.

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

Thank you.

I'll ask each of you how it would make you feel as a veteran who fought for this country, who was prepared to give your life for this country, to know that during the recent D-Day commemorations in France, there were no Canadian flags as part of the ceremony?

I'll let you start, Mr. Banks.

[Christopher Banks]

I really don't know how to respond to that. I didn't have that answer prepared. It's gross, I guess.

Again, just to reiterate the last thing I said in my last intervention, commemoration is incredibly easy. Why is the government so bad at it? We're talking about a delegation and some flags. What would that have cost, $20,000? Come on.

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

Go ahead, Mr. Bruyea.

[Sean Bruyea]

Thank you for the question.

When we joined the military, it's not just about the time period that we served. When we belong to a unit, there is a history associated with it. We've heard about the mention of honours. Even if we're not part of another unit, we feel a part of that huge military...I won't say family, but it's a huge military closeness that occurs at a deep community and a deep emotional level.

When something historical is not honoured, it affects us in the present. D-Day was part of our history, part of our legacy. Being in the military is a legacy of people that have sacrificed before us and people that sacrifice after us. We are deeply attached to that, and it wounds us deeply when the proper commemoration does not occur.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Go ahead quickly, Mr. Blois, if you'd like to, please.

[Michael Blois]

To piggyback on Sean's comment there, one of the things I'm immensely proud of is that for the rest of my regiment's history, there will be Afghanistan on the colours, and I know I contributed, and I know everybody who was with me who contributed to put that on that flag. It means a great deal to us.

However, when I look at all of those other battle honours on there, like the Pursuit to Mons, Vimy Ridge and the Battle of Ortona, I don't look at that and say, “That's somebody else.” Those are my brothers. Those are my sisters. Those are the people who I fought with; we're the same. If I see a veteran who fought in Korea, we look at each other and we're family and we see each other the same way. When the government can't do something as simple as recognize the sacrifice that our brothers and our sisters made on maybe one of the most monumental days in world history, it's a bloody disgrace.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you. Colleagues, you know that I'm trying to keep us on time. Try to keep it to one minute.

Mr. Miao, please go ahead.

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

I will try to keep it very short.

Thank you for being here.

I'll ask a very general question of all of you. Is there a general difference between the risk and injury assumed by CAF personnel deployed in official wartime service versus special duty service?

Mr. Bruyea, you can start.

[Sean Bruyea]

Hopefully you guys can refer to the data that was supplied by Veterans Affairs that shows the comparison. It's not a one-for-one comparison between wartime service and the special duty areas that we talk about, but we can see the immense cost of serving in so-called peacetime and so-called peacekeeping missions.

Although the deceased in-area may not be the same because of changes in warfare and combat medicine that are occurring and the ability to evacuate casualties as quickly as possible and save them, the lifelong casualties—the ones that develop afterwards that aren't officially recognized on cenotaphs, monuments, and books of remembrance—are comparable in every way with wartime service. Psychological injury and physical injury are things we need to start commemorating and respecting, because those people are with us now and they need to know that they're being recognized for what they live every day.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you.

I'm sorry, Mr. Miao.

Mr. Desilets, you have the floor for a minute. You have time to ask one of the witnesses a quick question.

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

Mr. Blois, you said earlier that the government does not even follow its own policies.

Could you elaborate on that? We have been through this before with the National Monument to Canada's Mission in Afghanistan.