Veterans Affairs Committee on Oct. 21st, 2024

[Jean-Rodrigue Paré, Committee Researcher]

The Veterans Well-being Act currently covers those designated under “special duty service”. This designation was created to recognize peacekeeping missions in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Starting in the 1990s, there were Canadian missions involving combat operations, which had not been the case for several decades. However, that increased level of risk or danger associated with combat operations equivalent to wartime experience is not recognized. The exact terminology is up for discussion, but it requires a designation above and beyond that of “special duty service”. There would then be “normal duty service”, meaning outside of operations, “special duty service”, and another level of service, for example, “overseas combat operation” or something like that.

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

Why would that not just eliminate the “special duty service” designation? Isn't it always associated with overseas operations?

[Jean-Rodrigue Paré]

No. An example would be soldiers who battled the wildfires in British Columbia. That's an example of “special duty service”.

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

I see.

[Jean-Rodrigue Paré]

These special duty service operations should be rightfully recognized for the high risk they pose.

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

As part of that recommendation, do you see changes to the amounts allocated to veterans?

[Jean-Rodrigue Paré]

That's another issue entirely.

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

Do you have another answer?

[Jean-Rodrigue Paré]

The concept of wartime service is entirely separate from access to benefits paid out under the Pension Act or the Veterans Well-being Act. It's another issue entirely, even if it deserves to be debated.

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

You mentioned the concept of risk or danger. In your opinion, how does that correspond to the three levels?

[Jean-Rodrigue Paré]

The Department of National Defence would be responsible for that designation, meaning that it would recognize a mission as being a combat mission. As Rear-Admiral Summers indicated, those on one know. Similarly, the special duty service designation is awarded by the Department of National Defence on the recommendation of the chief of the defence staff, a designation equivalent to a higher level would be recommended by the chief of the defence staff to the Minister of Defence.

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

Why would the government accept such a recommendation?

[Jean-Rodrigue Paré]

That's outside my purview.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you very much, Mr. Desilets.

Mr. Angus for six minutes.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I remember when the new veterans charter came in, in 2006, just as we were sending so many young people to Kandahar. The idea of a lump sum pension was going to be somehow better than a proper full life pension. I thought about it, because I come from mining country. In the mines, when you're young, you're indestructible, and then you start to get injured, but of course, you're young and indestructible. My office is always full of people who are in their forties and fifties, when the injuries catch up, and obviously that was going to happen coming out of the war.

We had people who were injured in 2005, as you pointed out, and they got a whole different deal than they would have in 2007. How is it that Canada could get away with doing something that was so obviously shortchanging people who were actually going into combat?

[John Senior]

When I look at my rank and see “Master Corporal”.... At that point in time, we knew we were getting shortchanged, and we knew it would have lifelong impacts, but we still did the missions anyway. We weren't fully cognizant or aware of the scope or breadth of the change. As a matter of fact, nobody was. Nobody was aware of how much of an impact the NVC would have on those suffering from injuries, whatever they were, or the need for care after service. The impact of that wasn't known until recently.

I don't really have an answer for that, other than what I just said. If we had known what we know now, which we should have known then, it would have been dumped, but for someone, somewhere, there was a benefit. For someone, somewhere, it sounded like a good idea. As I said, for the Canadian government right now, the impact for everybody here is that you're seeing these changes now. You're seeing that there's a recruiting problem for all uniformed services, but for national defence, it is a big, big problem. You're getting a hard turnover, and when you get a hard turnover, you get a lot more brain drain. You're less able to have that experience to go from one mission to the next, from one war or conflict or whatever it is to the next, and take those experiences to keep the casualty and injury rates low.

The Gulf War was a phenomenal success because you had people with 30 years of experience who went in and led that stuff and did these things. How many years of prior experience did Mr. Summers go in with? Imagine someone going in with only 10 years of experience and leading a whole combat team or brigade or division. You're going to have a lot of casualties regardless.

Again, this new veterans charter is having an effect. We're seeing long-term effects on recruiting and morale.

Does that answer your question, sir?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Yes. That's because it's compounded by the weasel language. I remember the veteran who stopped me at the Cobalt Legion. I thanked him for his service, and he said, “For what?” I said, “Well, you fought in the Korean War,” and he said, “Aha, I fought in the Korean War, but it wasn't a war.” I asked, “What do you mean?” and he said, “It was a police action.” I asked what that meant, and he said, “Well, that was the weasel language that robbed me of a proper pension.” I remember the fight to change that. Now we have “special duty” and all kinds of language. However, the fact is this: When you're facing combat, you're facing combat.

I think of the situation in the Medak Pocket, which was the biggest land battle Canadians fought since Korea. It was heavily traumatic. I don't even know what language they used for that, but it was a war. That was full-on war, and yet people came home after those units were broken up and were not recognized for what they'd done.

You talked about the fine print. The fine print has to be, “When you serve the country, we look after you.” It should be that simple, whatever the cost, because the cost has been paid with the lives of the people we sent to represent us and do their best, which they always do.

[John Senior]

Mr. Angus, you talked about something there. I'm sorry, but I have to say this now, before I forget.

They will never leave a soldier behind. However, the Canadian Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs, or the Government of Canada, the way they word it right now, will abandon your ass, no problem, to save money. It comes down to money. At the end of the day, the only thing we can think of is the new veterans charter. When we look at the two numbers, they are very different. When we look at the levels of service provided, it's very different.

At the end of the day, the only way it makes sense is that it really, truly, came down to saving some money.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Absolutely.

[John Senior]

However, at the end of the day, you're going to pay more to recuperate and fix that problem than if you had just left it the way it was, properly, the first time.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you very much for your testimony.

On behalf of the members of the committee, I would like to say thank you.

We will now hear from Master Corporal (Retired) John Senior, who is appearing as an individual.

Thank you very much.

On Thursday, we're going to have Sean Bruyea and Louise Richard at the committee.

I'd like to say thank you to our interpreters, technicians, clerk and analysts.

The meeting is adjourned.