Proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Veterans Affairs
Issue 2 - Evidence (afternoon meeting)
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 28, 2001
The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 12:00 p.m. to examine and report on the health care provided to veterans of war and of peacekeeping missions; the implementation of the recommendations made in its previous reports on such matters; and the terms of service, post-discharge benefits and health care of members of the regular and reserve forces as well as members of the RCMP and of civilians who have served in close support of uniformed peacekeepers.
Senator Michael A. Meighen (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: For the information of committee members, who probably already know, Mr. Leduc was born into a distinguished military family from Montreal. He has been twice recognized for his life-saving efforts during the four years that he served overseas. He has been invested as a member of the Order of Military Merit.
We have received your brief, and we have had a chance to look at it, but we would be pleased if you would go through it for us. When you conclude, we will have questions for you.
Mr. Harold Leduc, President, Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association: Honourable senators, it is a privilege to be able to present this submission on a very important issue that is facing our veterans.
I am speaking on behalf of Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association, which has a membership of approximately 800. We have chapters across the country.
The Chairman: Are you affiliated with the Legion?
Mr. Leduc: Most of our members are members of the Legion. We believe in the Legion, but we feel that it is off the rails right now.
We believe that the Government of Canada once knew how to look after our veterans. In fact, the government treated the veterans very well after the Second World War. They instituted the Veterans Charter, which looked after the re-establishment of our active service veterans after the Second World War.
For the sake of clarity of this presentation, I will follow two central issues: The first is active service, the second, compensation for active service. We believe that these issues are at the root of the problem facing our veterans today.
I have chosen bits and parts of some of my own family history of active service to illustrate the historical background of active service in the Canadian Military.
My first ancestor came here in 1691 as a soldier from France. In the early days of New France we relied on other countries for our defence. As the country began to establish itself Canadians were enlisted as captains in the militia. It was during these years that the obligation of service began for all citizens between the ages 16 to 65 years. These men could be called up in case of need.
This system worked with varying degrees of success; as long as the men were called up between harvest-time everything was fine. Sometime after the battle of the Plains of Abraham there was a split between the active and sedentary militia.
During the War of 1812 Canadians fought for the first time as a force against the Americans. One of my ancestors fought in the Battle of Chateaguay as a militia member of the Canadian Voltigeurs. Ten days later, he was reassigned to the British 48th Regiment. Men were interchangeable within units at the time. With the passing of the Canadian Militia Act of 1855, we began to base our military system on the British model.
The first significant force we sent overseas was for the Boar War, officially called the South African War. We sent Canadian soldiers over as a special service. Just after the turn of the 20th century our troops went over as an expeditionary force.
We have been able to discover that the central orders that called citizens to arms are Orders in Council. In this case, the Orders in Council were used to bring Canadian citizens onto active service.
There are some basic items involved in those Orders in Council: the reason troops are requested to go on active service, what is expected of them, the size of the force necessary, and the authority of the Governor General to place on active service either the regular or reserve forces inside or outside of Canada.
Annex A lists the periods of time that our modern day Canadian troops have been on active service since 1950. The following two pages show that members of the Canadian forces regulars have been on active service in Canada and abroad since November 20, 1973. That has been a continuum.
Annex B defines the terms of enlistment. In this annex you will find a letter from the Minister of National Defence clarifying some terms of the National Defence Act and a definition of the Canadian forces regulars on active service. On the following page you will find the details of when we were on active service and a copy of the Privy Council orders. The letter outlines the practice of the Privy Council Orders in Council, to put members of the forces on active service. As well, it tells us that the practice of drafting Orders in Council to put members of the forces on active service for service overseas stopped in 1989 because everyone was on active service in Canada and abroad. However, since 1973, NATO regular forces have been in active service in Canada and abroad.
The Chairman: Canadian Forces have been on active service, whether in Canada or abroad, pursuant to that Order in Council of 1973?
Mr. Leduc: Yes, as well as the reserve forces when they are attached to the regular forces overseas.
The Chairman: Is that indicated in the Order in Council, as well?
Mr. Leduc: Yes, it is in both of them. The National Defence Act also indicates when they would be on active service.
The letter also outlines the consequences of service on active service, which is significant. There is further clarification of the special force of soldiers who were engaged for South Korea.
In annex B, there are some attestation papers from the Second World War. The first one shows the Veterans Guard, which was never meant for overseas, and it shows that they signed for the Canadian Active Services Force. The second paper shows an attestation of an uncle of mine that was killed in Italy. I draw your attention to the second part of that document where you will see a declaration made by the man on attestation when he was signing on and where he agreed to engage for service in an active formation for a unit in the Canadian Forces.
The Chairman: I wonder if they gave them that oath in English or in French.
Mr. Leduc: It was probably done in English.
The Chairman: I hope he understood it.
Mr. Leduc: I bring your attention to the next document that shows another uncle who was conscripted and was not made to sign the declaration. However, the next page shows that he signed forms for active service.
The following page is a copy of the forms that my father signed for the Korean Special Forces. After he returned from Korea he was engaged as a regular in the Canadian army. He was taken off active service after time served in the Korean War.
The next page shows the modern day Canadian Forces sign-up forms for new recruits who have taken the oath. You will note that in section 3, recruits actually sign on for a specific type of engagement. However, the form does not speak to active service. There is a reference, in section 3(2) that speaks to:
...for when I am on active service, within one year thereafter.However, it does not speak clearly to those forces that have been on active service, both regular outside and inside Canada since 1973. I draw your attention to those forms.
I served in Germany, with NATO, from 1973 to 1977. I was on active service, and it does not stand out in my mind that I was told that specifically. It does not speak to the fact that I was demobilized when I came back. At that time the terms "mobilization" and "demobilization" were used to describe active service.
I do not remember signing it when I went to Cyprus in 1988, but I may have. It is not mentioned in the same way as it was in the examples for the Second World War and the Korean War.
At some point along the way, we have lost a value to active service. That may be a central part of what has derailed the care and re-establishment programs for our post-World War II veterans.
The Chairman: Do you mean that, because it is not clear that peacekeepers are on active service, there are consequences that would not exist if they were clearly stated to be on active service?
Mr. Leduc: Yes, that is correct.
Senator Atkins: This would reflect in the benefits that they receive.
The Chairman: Has the department taken the position that they were not on active service?
Mr. Leduc: They have not taken that position. I served in the regular force for 22 years, and most of that regular force never spoke of active service. Most of those serving today do not speak in those terms either. I do not know if they understand the difference.
Senator Atkins: How does the department distinguish between the two? Is it on a case-by-case basis?
Mr. Leduc: I do not know at what level it stops, or if there is even a requirement to distinguish between them. As far as the troops going overseas are concerned, they need to know only that they have an operation to perform.
The Chairman: Somebody must say at some point: "Sorry, you are not entitled to this because you have not been on active service."
Mr. Leduc: That happens later.
The Chairman: I understand, but does that actually happen?
Mr. Leduc: Yes, although it is said in a couple of different ways. Someone might say, "You did not serve in the Second World War, so you are not a veteran." The definitions and terms blur a bit.
Senator Atkins: You talked about individuals who have been injured; what about a person who have served, is not injured and becomes a senior citizen with medical problems?
Mr. Leduc: Unless you were injured while in a special duty area or during one of the times prescribed as active service, you are not treated as a veteran.
Senator Moore: Are you saying that, at the commencement of a tour of duty as a peacekeeper, the soldier is not considered to be on active service, and that no one has that discussion with the soldier? That would indicate that the onus is on the soldier to ask what his or her status is. It sounds backwards to me.
Are you saying that you do not know what your status is when you commence service in a peacekeeping effort, and you will not know what that status is until you return injured, or you become a senior citizen with a health problem? Is that the situation?
Mr. Leduc: It is the terminology; we do not speak of active service in the regular force.
Senator Moore: Is that the determinant when you are trying to obtain entitlement or benefits, to which you are entitled?
Mr. Leduc: That is why I illustrated the contractual terms of service that citizens once signed when they joined the service. My grandfather knew he was signing up for the Canadian Active Service Force. Since 1973, we have been on active service. This newer form does not show that, when you give the oath.
The Chairman: Is the individual who signs up made fully aware of his or her rights and obligations? It is my understanding that you said they are not made aware.
Are these people engaged in peacekeeping missions, which I assume to mean active service, because of the risk of injury, et cetera? Are you telling us that they are not considered to have been on active service in respect of the benefits?
Mr. Leduc: It is only by service in a special duty area. We do not speak in terms of active service. Active service is a term that the government uses, but it is not the term that the military uses.
The Chairman: With great respect, unfortunately what matters is the term that the government uses.
Mr. Leduc: Yes.
The Chairman: Serving men and women may not use the term. Do you mean that the government can tell a soldier that although he or she was in Bosnia they were not on active service because it was a peacekeeping mission, and therefore are not entitled to benefits that a soldier might have been entitled to as a result of serving in the Second World War?
Mr. Leduc: Yes, there is a huge difference.
The Chairman: I am trying to get the problem clear in my mind. I hear two problems. The first is informing people of what their rights and obligations are in a peacekeeping scenario. The second is understanding the benefits to which you are entitled, after the fact.
Senator Wiebe: The benefits about which we are talking are the benefits that are now made available to veterans. Does the Department of National Defence or the Department of Veterans Affairs not consider anyone after 1947 as being a veteran who has served?
Mr. Leduc: After March 29, 2001 they do. Before that, they did not.
Senator Wiebe: From 1947 until March 29, 2001, regardless of whether you serve here in Canada in the regular or reserves, in South Korea, or on a peacekeeping mission, you would never have an opportunity to be classified as a veteran.
Mr. Leduc: No. Then the Minister of Veterans Affairs came up with a new government policy that indicated that anyone who had a military occupation code in the service, and anybody who was released honourably would be considered a veteran.
Senator Wiebe: After this year, anyone that served in South Korea, served on a peacekeeping mission, or served in the regular army here at home upon retirement or discharge would be considered a veteran.
Mr. Leduc: Yes.
Senator Wiebe: Would the same benefits that applied to other veterans now be available to the those people?
Mr. Leduc: No. That is the second part of my brief. Those folks that served in South Korea were under the same type of Order in Council that put them on active service. Fifteen thousand were called up for the special force. They were given the benefits of the Veterans Charter of the Second World War. However, that stopped from that point forward.
Senator Wiebe: As of this year, we cleared up the definition of a veteran, or we have updated the definition of a veteran that includes peacekeepers, reservists, and people who served in Korea. The benefits available to the different groups have not been resolved.
As far as the benefits are concerned, which group qualifies for benefits and which group does not?
Mr. Leduc: There are two parts to the Pension Act. If you are injured in the Canadian Forces during peacetime, you have to prove that you were injured on military duty. You are able to get compensation under section 21(2) of the Pension Act, which deals with Canadian Forces peacetime.
If you are injured in special duty area, such as Cyprus, Bosnia or Afghanistan, then you get benefits under section 21(1) of the Pension Act. Section 21(1) used to say something different.
There has been some updating of the Pension Act for those injured in Canada. It is essentially the same, but it brought ancillary benefits to those who were injured overseas. It is still not at the level of those that served in South Korea or were on active service during the Second World War.
The Chairman: A person from the Ministry of Veterans Affairs is here today. Minister Duhamel was before this committee and made a statement concerning the definition of veterans. Regrettably, we do not have it close at hand. We should have it here.
Senator Wiebe: You represent the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association that includes reservists who served as peacekeepers and regular army personnel who have served as peacekeepers. Had either of those groups been injured in a peacekeeping duty, would both qualify for the same benefits, or is there a difference?
Mr. Leduc: They would qualify for the same benefits.
Senator Wiebe: There is a question in regards to qualifying for benefits for those who are reservists and regular army people who serve here at home.
Mr. Leduc: It speaks to a larger problem. It speaks to the issue of understanding what military service is. Whether you volunteer in time of war or peace, you are taken out of the normal stream of the society and eventually plunked back into it. It might be with six months, a year, or 30 years down the road. You need help getting back into society and the benefits of the Veterans Charter brought that help to veterans after the Second World War.
Senator Wiebe: Are you saying that the benefits that were available to veterans in 1947 are different from the benefits that are available for veterans today?
Mr. Leduc: Yes.
The Chairman: Is that the only question, or is there a group of people who are not considered veterans that does not even get the insufficient benefits available to veterans?
Mr. Leduc: It opens up a new area when we talk about active service and veterans. We have civilians working in Yugoslavia now and they have not been considered.
The Chairman: The benefits that World War Two veterans enjoyed, particularly in terms of reintegration, do not appear to be available now to veterans of Bosnia. That is one issue.
Is there a second issue that some people are not available for these insufficient benefits? I want you to tell me who they are.
Mr. Leduc: If you are not injured or do not report injury, you get nothing. There are no benefits.
The Chairman: If you are a what?
Mr. Leduc: A regular or reserve force member.
The Chairman: That is across the board. Everyone.
Mr. Leduc: Today you have to be injured to get a benefit.
Senator Atkins: You have to have a medical record.
Senator Wiebe: How about retirement from the forces after you served your time.
Mr. Leduc: There are some benefits that speak to retirement, which are completely different. They still do not speak to re-establishment; that is a huge issue. When you retire from the service you get an annuity depending on the number of years that you served.
Senator Wiebe: What if a 35-year-old regular army person that served for 10 years went to Bosnia and served a six-month term came home and quit? That individual is not entitled to any benefits. Are you asking that the individual be provided the same kind of benefits that were provided to the soldier who fought in the Second World War, came back to Canada uninjured, and was released?
You simply want the same benefits to be supplied to the current individual as those that were provide to veterans of World War II.
Mr. Leduc: Yes, in today's terms.
The Chairman: That is helpful.
Senator Wiebe: I see a difference between someone who served during wartime and was released, and someone who served for 10 years and decided to leave the service of his or her own accord. In the first instance, the government lets you go, and in the second instance, the individual makes the decision to leave. If the person quitting is not leaving for medical reasons, why should he be entitled to benefits? Perhaps he has made a career decision that will enable him to earn more in another job. For example, if he was a plumber during his time in the army, and he decided that he could earn three times his salary in the private sector, then he might quit and move on. Are you saying that, he should be entitled to those benefits?
Mr. Leduc: If the person had been a Canadian Forces regular I would agree. However, it is a case of active service, and those terms can change. The military does not have to release someone who asks to get out, and that has happened.
There are different conditions of serving active service. Yes, career decisions are made, but even if you are working for the public service and you make those career decisions, you can still receive help in your transition. I was kicked to the curb after 22 years of service, and it was almost like being 17 years old again. Although I had knowledge, skills and abilities, I had no entry-level education. I left the service as a supervisor and had to start at the bottom of the heap again.
Senator Atkins: After the Second World War, they had the Veterans Assistance Act, which provided grants for education. Are you asking for that?
Mr. Leduc: Yes.
Senator Atkins: When you talk about benefits, what you want goes way beyond health benefits.
Mr. Leduc: That is correct. I am basing this on the needs of our veterans. When they come out of the service, they are anxious about the future. The veteran must go from a directed culture to a completely self-directed culture, and that cannot happen overnight. It takes about two years for the transition to be completed.
You do not always make the best decisions when you first get out of the service. However, things are improving because there are transition case coordinators to help the new civilians get started. If there is no one who understands military service, if you cannot go for re-education, or if you do not have help to find a job, it can be extremely difficult.
At the time of the Second World War and the Korean War, people who joined the army did so in large groups. They went oversees and typically returned to the same community that they had left. Today, people leave as individuals and they do not necessarily go back to the communities that they leave. An individual may re-establish in the community that his or her spouse is from. There is no social network in many cases.
Senator Wiebe: What is the length of service that a regular army personnel has to serve before he qualifies for a pension? Is there an age to determine that qualification?
Mr. Leduc: They are putting the maximum age up to 60, but the earliest you can get out with an annuity is 20 years of service, if you retire.
Senator Wiebe: If you decided to leave the service, that would mean that, if you were willing as an individual, you could serve in the army until you are 65?
Mr. Leduc: I believe the age is 60. That will be updated this year.
Senator Wiebe: Are you saying that you can serve until you are 60, but you have to wait until you are 65 to draw your pension?
Mr. Leduc: No, you can draw the pension right away.
Senator Wiebe: Do you have to wait until you turn 60 to draw your pension if you decide at age 50 to leave?
Mr. Leduc: No, you can draw your annuity as soon as you leave the service.
Senator Wiebe: Is that paid monthly for the rest of your life?
Mr. Leduc: Yes.
The Chairman: That narrows the discussion, thank you.
I think the exchange between you and Senator Wiebe has helped us to understand the basis of your submission. While there are some measures in place to help in the transition, there are not enough measures, in your view, especially compared to those that were available after World War II.
I did not hear you make a distinction between someone who is in the service for five years and voluntarily decides to leave and someone who leaves for mandatory retirement reasons or because the army no longer requires their services. How many years does one sign on for?
Mr. Leduc: The first engagement is three or five years.
The Chairman: Can you get out at the end of that?
Mr. Leduc: Yes, you can at the end of that engagement.
The Chairman: So, someone can leave to make more money as a plumber on Maine Street than at Valcartier. That decision is up to the individual, but your point is that there are still the problems associated with reintegration into civilian life. The longer the service, the more serious the problem can be.
Mr. Leduc: Yes.
Senator Atkins: It is a legal contract.
The Chairman: When you have fulfilled the contract, should there be that option?
Mr. Leduc: I keep going back to the Second World War, not because I think we deserve what those folks deserved, but because it was active service overseas. Those are the distinctions they used then. That still applies except that we speak in different terms today. We do not go on active service we go on operations.
The Chairman: Had you ever heard of anyone not getting benefits because they were not classified as being on active service?
Mr. Leduc: Absolutely, yes.
The Chairman: I do not know whether this pertains to that issue, but this is the response I received to my question in respect of Operation Apollo and the status of those serving members. I quote:
Order in Council P.C. 1989-583 placed all members of CF Regular Force and Reserve Force on active service when outside Canada. This Order in Council is still in effect today. Based on legal advice, it was decided to discontinue the practice of issuing operation specific orders in council because these would be redundant with the before mentioned Order in Council.The special duty area and contingent benefits paid to CF personnel while on Operation Apollo are being assessed. As of now, all CF personnel deployed on Operation Apollo will receive added compensation. If the CF assessment of benefits due its members is higher than their current rate of compensation, the CF personnel will receive this higher rate retroactively.
I understand that it is simply a discretionary decision that the personnel employed in Operation Apollo will receive added compensation if it is more than their regular pay.
That does not deal with Mr. Leduc's issue of post operation service.
Mr. Leduc: And compensation for injury.
The Chairman: Is it different for ex-peacekeepers than it was for veterans after World War Two?
Mr. Leduc: Today, in respect of the Veterans Charter, we look at the ability to get the returning veteran back into service.
In the earliest times, the government gave the veterans land grants, because if you had land, you had riches; you could fend for yourself, even if you were injured. They continued that up to the Second World War, I believe. During and after the Korean War, veterans were given assistance with housing.
Today, the only coverage you get is under the Pension Act. The Pension Act compensates for disability.
The Chairman: Physical Disability?
Mr. Leduc: Both physical and mental disability. It is fine as a policy but it is a process that can take up to two years to complete. Soldiers do not understand process. For someone with post-traumatic stress disorder or stress related injuries the process exacerbates the problem. It spills out into the family issue. The veteran is a whole person. This Pension Act only looks at the disability; no one is looking at the ability. There is usually a family issue, and it creates a nightmare for these people.
Senator Wiebe: Would the benefits be better for someone who was wounded in active service and returned before 1947, than the benefits given today to an individual that was wounded in South Korea or in Bosnia? Was there special benefits paid to a returning soldier up to 1947?
Mr. Leduc: If you were talking about just the disability under the Pension Act, it would be the same in 1940 dollars compared to the year 2000 dollars for disability.
Do not forget, the veteran of the Second World War also had other benefits; there were education and housing benefits that also helped them re-establish themselves.
Senator Wiebe: Are we treating our injured personnel the same today as we did in 1947?
Mr. Leduc: Yes, under the Pension Act we are.
Senator Wiebe: However, we are not providing the three levels of benefits that that were provided to veterans after 1947.
Mr. Leduc: I would also submit that those injured do not have access to military hospitals.
Senator Wiebe: Is that an advantage or a disadvantage?
Mr. Leduc: I brought a veteran to St. Anne's Hospital in Montreal. He almost melted away. He said, "I'm home." He had psychiatric injuries. It was important for him to be with other veterans.
Senator Wiebe: Yes, but in terms of care?
Mr. Leduc: In terms of care, it would be an advantage to be in a veteran's hospital, especially with psychiatric injuries. There is not much help out there for veterans with psychiatric injuries.
Senator Wiebe: The psychiatric injuries today are considerably different than they were up to 1947. Up until 1947, if you saw an atrocity, you were trained to do something about it and had the authority to do so. Today, some of the people that are returning with mental problems served under peacekeeping auspices where the rules of engagement were different. If you observed an atrocity and reported it, nothing might be done. That is dramatic for any individual.
I am trying to get some comparison to the level of mental damage or hurt that was done to our enlisted personnel, both regular and reservist, who served in Bosnia under NATO where the rules of engagement were different. Formerly, if you saw an atrocity, you could move and correct it. You are going to find that the amount of mental anguish that these people experience have when they come back is going to be different.
Mr. Leduc: On Friday, I was at the University of British Columbia where General Dallaire gave a presentation about Rwanda and post-traumatic stress. Three Vietnam veterans from Washington were in the audience. At the end of the presentation, they said, "Thank you very much. You have described what we went through when we came back from Vietnam."
A large part of this trauma has to do with the soldiers not coming home as heroes like they did after the Second World War. For the most part, people just came back and tried to get on with their lives. They were sent away on holidays, and then started training for the next assignment. There is no time to debrief. In the present situation soldiers come straight home after the war. That was the same situation with the Vietnam veterans.
General Dallaire is a high profile soldier. His family experienced his mission through CNN. If you have a loved one overseas and the cameras are there you are always wondering what is going on. Warfare has changed.
The Chairman: Treatment and benefits might change as well. Is that what you are saying?
Mr. Leduc: Yes. The Canadians returning from peacekeeping missions and the Vietnam veterans' numbers are pretty much the same. It has much to do with coming straight from the operation area back into society.
Senator Wiebe: Are you saying that we are taking for granted the services of our people in peacekeeping missions? We look at it as a job rather than as them being a hero and that is causing some of the adjustment problems?
Mr. Leduc: I see two sides to that question. The Canadian people appreciate very much the role of their soldiers.
Senator Wiebe: Are you saying that they do not show it?
Mr. Leduc: It would go a long way for a soldier to come back to parades. Soldiers do not look for much, but a pat on the back as soon as they hit the ground from either a senator or politician saying thank you on behalf of the people of Canada would help the soldier to fit back into society. A certificate of appreciation is a good idea also.
Senator Wiebe: A brass band would be nice, but we do not have those anymore. I agree with you 100 per cent on that portion.
Mr. Leduc: Bands are the heart and soul of the unit. When you cut out that, you cut out spirit.
Senator Wiebe: You better believe it.
The Chairman: You have clarified very well the heart of your submission. Please go on if there are other points you would like to make, unless other senators have questions.
Do you think we are getting your point?
Mr. Leduc: Yes, I do. I want to clarify one thing. I am basing this testimony on the ten years of advocacy work I have done with veterans, as well as the work that our organization has done. We are basing this testimony of the needs of the veterans.
I have provided a veterans' profile in my written presentation. A soldier who was a Sea King pilot gave me permission to put his story in my presentation. This man was too proud to go on welfare. He has vertigo. He has a part time job as a security officer because he cannot hold any other type of job.
Veterans Affairs has told him that he can take a clerk's job at an airline company or be an instructor. Those jobs are related to his job. He has applied, but they have turned him down. It is a struggle for him. This ex-soldier has gone through this for three or four years.
These are whole people. They are not just disabled members of the forces. They have been put back into society as broken human beings, and in some cases society is at risk.
We need to look at them as whole people. We need to re-establish them as whole people. Unlike during the war years, these people come out of the service with families. Their families live their lives with them. The wife becomes the primary breadwinner. Who is helping her?
Our organization helped the wife of a veteran who could not scrape together $100 to take the second level of a lifeguard course in order to add one dollar an hour to her job. Her young husband could not work and they had three young children at home.
There are thousands of sad stories. Putting out the fires is easy, but we need to understand the consequences of active service on our veterans. That will lead us to understand how the Veterans Charter can assist these people in need.
Every time we put on our medals, we are reminded of our service. It often does not come forward that way. Somebody may have gone through a traumatic incident in Bosnia, Yugoslavia, or Egypt in 1956. They had a rough time. More people were lost during the 10 years of the Egypt tour than the 10 years in Yugoslavia.
They are reminded of that every time that they put on their medals. That is what Remembrance Day is about. That is our time to grieve. We need to continue to grieve. It is part of our culture. That must be understood. Remembrance Days are getting bigger. People understand more, but the government has to improve its behaviour.
During the Second World War it was understood that there was a moral contract with soldiers. People knew what the soldiers would be provided with in exchange for their services. I submit that moral contract is still there. There is just one part of it not being upheld.
Senator Atkins: Do you think that people understand more? We do not educate them.
Senator Atkins: It is not in our history books any more.
Mr. Leduc: I agree. It needs to be there. We need to get out and do more educating. We are telling our younger veterans that it their time now. They should get out there and talk to the school kids and tell the people in their community what they have done. UN Forces won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1988 for their actions in Cyprus. How many people know that? Not many. I was there.
Senator Atkins: Is not this where there could be a bigger role for the legion?
Mr. Leduc: We are in a minefield.
Senator Atkins: I have been on a number of Veterans Affairs tours. We have had cadets and students with us. It was amazing to watch the interaction of young people with these veterans; the veterans overwhelmed the young people.
It seems to me that the veterans have an opportunity to reach out more, to do more classroom work and more community work where they can expose themselves to the young people and tell them more about their experiences, not only in wartime but in peacekeeping time as well.
Mr. Leduc: They are slowly getting back to that. I have spoken with all levels of the legion, including the Dominion Command. They are a number of years away from catching up to modern day forces. We are a tribal bunch. The Second World War veterans do not understand what we went through. Perhaps we do not understand what they have gone through. It is difficult.
We found through one of the programs that we put together with the University of British Columbia that when you put Second World War veterans and post-World War II veterans together to share experiences they find that they have shared a similar experience. That usually breaks down the barriers.
When you see the soldiers from the legion on parade you see all of the medals that they are wearing. To the uneducated observer they are all veterans. However, up to 60 per cent of them are not veterans.
The Chairman: Under whose definition?
Mr. Leduc: By any definition. They may be associate members with many Legion medals for long service with the Legion. They have great heart and put good work into the cause for the Legion.
The president of the B.C. Lions asked that Veterans Affairs invite veterans to come out at half time for one of the games. It was amazing. For three years in a row fans did not leave the stands at half time when veterans marched on the field.
During the most recent walk, we had three young reservists from Bosnia who got shuffled down to the back of the rows. I told them that if I had been head of the parade, they would be at the front because that was their day. Ahead of them were mixtures and splatters of people from the Legion, and some were not veterans. It is difficult a difficult situation. The Legion is going through a huge learning curve.
The Chairman: I am not talking about the integration of the different commitments that service people have had. I am talking about translating those experiences to the community that does not have any awareness of what the veterans have done in the past.
Mr. Leduc: You are right. They do have those programs. It is difficult for them to get younger veterans involved with them to help them out. The younger veterans do not come back in large groups into the communities. For many years, these soldiers have heard that they are not considered veterans and therefore, could not join the Legion.
Senator Atkins: They are joining the Legions.
Mr. Leduc: Not many are joining because for so many years the Legion said that they were not veterans. However, it is getting better. It is not doom and gloom. The Legion is going through a learning curve. As I said before, I am a member of the Legion.
Senator Atkins: The Legion will now recognize them as veterans.
Mr. Leduc: They do now. However, they still need to look after the Second World War veterans, as they should.
The Chairman: Can you talk about the RCMP, who served in close support of peacekeepers in military operations? Do you represent them? Do they enter into this question of adequacy of benefits?
Mr. Leduc: The RCMP is different than it was during the Second World War. The RCMP has their own compensation package, but if they are injured overseas, the Pension Act administers their compensation. We do have members of our organization at the front of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. A retired chief superintendent holds a high office in our organization.
They are paid better so their compensation is better. They are a closed bunch of folks. They look after themselves.
We are starting to see more city police and provincial police. They are not as tightly grouped. They need help.
The Chairman: They do not serve in peacekeeping operations, do they?
Mr. Leduc: Sure they do. It is wide open, and we have chartered planes to send troops overseas. What happens if they suffer from stress-related injuries down the road from that experience?
Senator Wiebe: You said that there are 800 members in your association. Have you any estimate of how many others there are?
Mr. Leduc: It is difficult to say because many people do not join. Some of them are members of more than one organization, so it is hard to estimate. For example, there is also the Gulf War Veterans Association, and about 4,500 Canadians went over to that war.
Senator Atkins: There was also the Korean War.
Mr. Leduc: Korean War veterans are strong and large in numbers across the country. There are also regimental associations and the chiefs and POs associations. The list of groups goes on and on.
Senator Wiebe: Would all these different organizations agree with your proposals?
Mr. Leduc: Because of my involvement on the Veterans Affairs Canadian Forces Advisory Council and the Ottawa Centre for the Care to the Injured, with the Canadian Forces, they look to us for leadership on these issues. We have open discussions, and we solicit feedback; if we have input, we listen to their feedback.
Senator Atkins: You must have watched the struggle of the Merchant Navy Veterans with great interest.
Mr. Leduc: We have a sister peacekeeping organization. Our organization is open to those that served in NATO. We have it on the table to look after those who served in the NATO Cold War. Those folks have not been recognized at all for their active service, where a number of Canadians died overseas. It will always come down that.
The National Council of Veterans Associations in Canada was formed to put up some umbrellas, and the legion absorbed some of the smaller organizations in 1926. Maybe we are at that point again, where we need to gather at the big table and discuss these issues.
The Chairman: The NCVA is chaired by Mr. Clifford Chadderton, who will be at this evening's meeting of our committee.
Mr. Leduc: We are a member of the NCVA.
The Chairman: What are the requirements for membership to a Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association for those posted to Germany after World War II?
Mr. Leduc: Our definition of peacekeeping is wide. For instance, you can be an associate member. It comes back to being tribal. Some people say that it was not peacekeeping, and the old arguments begin. A person can join the organization as an ordinary member if he or she served overseas.
There are some discussions about service during the Cold War, but we have probably helped thousands, over the years, because we do not turn people away.
The Chairman: Would there be civilians who served at the Distant Early Warning line stations?
Mr. Leduc: Yes, there are some civilians.
The Chairman: Would they be eligible?
Mr. Leduc: Canada lost five foreign service officers during peacekeeping missions.
Senator Wiebe: When it comes to dealing with governments there is always an advantage in numbers. You made the comment that part of the reason this organization exists is that the Veterans Association is not in step with the times. Rather than having the veterans fight your battle, you decided to form a separate organization. Is there a reason for that?
Mr. Leduc: We started off as members of the Royal Canadian Legion where we ended up in a big melting pot. Before 1992, when there was suddenly an awareness of the issue of peacekeepers, you were simply part of that melting pot. Your needs were not necessarily looked after. That is one of the reasons why the Korean War veterans formed their own association. We have come a long way in ten short years.
Senator Wiebe: Are declining numbers of members, and the resulting opening up of the veteran halls, the reasons for reliance on associate members for the veterans associations?
Mr. Leduc: Typically, that is the reason.
Senator Wiebe: Are you not running the same risk by having associate members in your organization?
Mr. Leduc: We are finding that the younger veterans families want to become involved, because they are a large part of the repair of the veterans. In many cases, they are the primary caregivers and they want to be involved.
I want to make the point that the Department of Veterans Affairs was formed to be the filter that members of the forces use to go from the service back to civilian society. There is a great opportunity to breathe some life back into that department so that it does more than look after disability programs.
You are a member of the forces for a snapshot in time of your life, but for the remainder of your life, you will always be a veteran. There is a great opportunity here for the Department of Veterans Affairs.
The Chairman: I take that as your central message today.
Senator Wiebe: Those observations are covered on page 15 of my brief.
Mr. Leduc: Yes. The first thing is to dust off the archives and come up with a re-establishment act again.
The Chairman: Who represents civilians recruited by the Department of National Defence to go overseas on peacekeeping missions? Do you have any idea what entitlements they can claim in terms of pension, disability, et cetera?
Mr. Leduc: From what I understand, they are usually on contract and those stipulations are covered by the contracts that they sign. However, there is a wider problem and we need to do more digging. This has only happened in the last few years with civilians. Again, there are NGOs and many other Canadians who go out, get hurt and return, who are not the same people they were before they left; their lives have changed.
The Chairman: Are there any further questions? Mr. Leduc, thank you for your time. We have all learned a great deal this afternoon. Is it agreed, senators, that the material submitted by Mr. Leduc be filed as an exhibit with the committee?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you.
The committee adjourned.