Mr. Speaker, recently I asked the Prime Minister why the Liberal Party favours the treatment of convicted terrorists over the treatment of Canadian veterans. The example I used was the decision by the government to disrespect Canadian soldiers, veterans and their families with the controversial $10.5-million payoff to convicted terrorist Omar Khadr.
At the same time, the government refuses to settle a slander case with Canadian veteran Sean Bruyea, and so far has spent seven times in legal fees what the veteran is asking for to settle.
I correctly pointed out, for the benefit of Canadians, the hypocrisy in the Liberal Party policy. The excuse the Prime Minister used to justify that $10.5-million payoff was even more lame than the ones he used during the SNC Lavalin corruption scandal.
He claimed he wanted to save on legal fees. This is a Prime Minister who promised not to take veterans to court. It appears by his actions he misspoke. He actually meant to say, not to take terrorists to court.
We know how the current leader of the Liberal Party feels about veterans. He told a veteran in Edmonton that veterans are asking for too much. That comment is two-faced coming from a Liberal Party that gave $10.5 million to convicted terrorist Omar Khadr.
Not only did the Liberal Party break that promise, it has spent $180,000 in taxpayer money fighting Canadian veteran Sean Bruyea. That amount in legal fees is over seven times more than what veteran Sean Bruyea is seeking in damages for being slandered by the government, and it gets worse.
Rather than respecting Canadians with a proper response to my question, the chief Liberal Party spokesperson gave a rambling, incoherent response that had nothing to do with the question.
Why was the federal government going to such extraordinary lengths to attack Canadian veteran Sean Bruyea? It was to intimidate him into silence. To Sean's credit, he refused to be abused by the government attacking him. In an article written for CBC News, he had this to say:
Many veterans and their families are not happy about the Khadr settlement—that much is obvious. But in the climate of vicious and partisan name-calling that seems to accompany all things Khadr, veterans' reactions are being unfairly dismissed....
At the core of the issue is benefits—specifically, the gruelling adventure race veterans have to endure to plead for their parsimonious assistance...Veterans, likewise, often have to fight years—and often decades—to receive their benefits.
...Veterans are barred from suing government for mistreatment when seeking benefits. What's more, veterans are limited to using the military's rotten veterans tribunal system, one that provides “free” lawyers employed by the very department from which veterans are trying to seek benefits.
Legal settlements in Canada do not fall under taxable income, therefore [Omar] Khadr will pay no tax on his $10.5 million...95 per cent of the benefits received by severely injured veterans and their survivors is now taxable. The court case to return to lifelong pensions continues...even though [the Prime Minister] promised to end court cases against veterans and return to lifelong pensions.
To prove permanent disability, Canadian veterans must make humiliating annual declarations that they are still missing their legs, or that their minds and spirits continue to be devoured by the lingering trauma of war.Should the most injured attempt some part-time employment for a more meaningful life, the government deducts every dollar earned. Indeed, the government already deducts pension, CPP disability, OAS and GIS from veterans' benefits. Khadr, on the other hand, gets to keep every cent of his settlement.
...But for those who have devoted their lives to defending Canada and now fight to receive their deserved compensation, watching the Canadian government simply hand over $10.5 million to someone who allegedly fought against our ally is unsettling, to say the least.
...Among [the Prime Minister's] justifications for paying Khadr was the idea that it would have cost the government more to fight than to pay. But justice, fairness, openness and transparency about a government's actions should not be dependent on how much it costs to avoid paying a debt.
...When they see such a comprehensive government action...veterans and their fellow Canadians simply can't understand the gross discrepancy.