:
We will now begin the public portion of the meeting. Welcome.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motions adopted by the committee on March 9 and December 5, 2023, the committee is resuming its study on the recognition of Persian Gulf veterans and wartime service.
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format.
I would now like to welcome the witnesses. I would like to begin by welcoming the Honourable Bill Blair, Minister of National Defence. Also, from the Department of National Defence, we have General Jennie Carignan, chief of the defence staff, Canadian Armed Forces, and we wish her all the best in this new role. We also have Major‑General Erick Simoneau, deputy commander of military personnel command, who is no stranger to the committee and whom we salute.
[English]
Minister, you have five minutes for your opening statement. Then we'll ask you some questions.
The floor is yours.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would also extend my sincere gratitude to the members of this committee for the kind invitation to appear before you today. I look forward to the opportunity.
I would like to begin my remarks by stating quite unequivocally that Canada is immensely grateful for the services of all members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and we particularly want to acknowledge our veterans. This includes the more than 4,000 Canadians who served in the Persian Gulf region in 1990 and 1991. As part of a coalition of countries, those service members helped to remove the invading forces of Iraq from neighbouring Kuwait. Following the war, they served on peacekeeping missions and helped enforce embargoes in the region. In the face of danger, they each showed courage in defending our most cherished values of peace, freedom and democracy.
I recently had the privilege and opportunity to meet with two members of the Persian Gulf War veterans association, Sammy Sampson and Michael McGlennon. I know that this committee has also heard from them. I want to take the opportunity as well to thank them for their service and their advocacy.
I also know that the committee heard from the earlier this week. In relation to the study of the recognition of Persian Gulf veterans, I am here today to provide a brief overview of how military service is currently classified. I will also highlight some of the services that the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces offer to current military members. However, I'd like to make one thing very clear: We all have an obligation to those who served our country.
I work very closely with the , who is also the Associate Minister of National Defence. I have heard from many of our veterans how difficult it can be sometimes to get pushed from pillar to post between the Minister of Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs. Let me state very clearly that I believe it is a shared obligation and responsibility to support all members of the Canadian Armed Forces and their veterans. It is the government's responsibility and not any one individual ministry's.
I'd also like to draw the committee's attention to key definitions that are relevant to today's meeting. The Pension Act defines service during World War I and World War II as “service in a theatre of actual war”, because there was a declaration. Similarly, the Pension Act provides a specific definition for service in the Korean War. The Veterans Well-being Act defines “special duty service”. Under sections 69 and 70 of the Veterans Well-being Act, it is my responsibility as the Minister of National Defence, in consultation with the Minister of Veterans Affairs, to designate military service as either “special duty area” or “special duty service”. To determine which classification to use, we conduct a high-level assessment of the hardship and risk factors in that operation before members are deployed. While an initial assessment is made by professionals, the hardship and risk levels can be adjusted as each mission evolves.
The classification of military service ensures that members and veterans receive the benefits they are entitled to from National Defence and Veterans Affairs Canada. It also means that as hardship and risk levels are adjusted, members' compensation and benefits can be adjusted as well.
The Chair: Minister, can you please slow down for our interpreters?
Hon. Bill Blair: I apologize, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: No problem.
Hon. Bill Blair: In one respect, I want to be very respectful of the five minutes you gave me, but at the same time, I will try to be kind to your translators.
The Chair: Thank you. You still have two minutes.
Hon. Bill Blair: Thank you.
However, applying these classifications to different deployments should not indicate that we value the efforts of our members and veterans more or less, depending on where and when they serve. Our appreciation must always be for everyone who wears the uniform, and it must be unyielding.
Additionally, reclassifying those who served in the Persian Gulf on special duty service to mirror the definitions for service during the first and second world wars or in the Korean War would not necessarily change the benefits they are eligible to receive. This is because these veterans are already eligible for some of the highest levels of benefits through Veterans Affairs Canada for injuries arising from their service.
When it comes to offering support for our armed forces, National Defence is responsible for currently serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces. This is a responsibility that I want to assure you we take very seriously. National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces offer a comprehensive framework of benefits and services, including those related to mental health, illness and injury, and transitioning out of service.
For example, the CAF runs 31 primary care clinics, offering specialized in-house mental health services, social workers, mental health nurses, psychologists, psychiatrists, addictions counsellors and mental health chaplains who are on site to provide the care and support our members need. When a service member is ill or injured, the Canadian Armed Forces transition group provides support for recovery, rehabilitation and reintegration within the forces wherever that is possible. We have also developed a five-step process to assist military members to transition to civilian life, whether they are medically or non-medically released.
The Government of Canada wishes to express—and I personally want to express—its sincere gratitude to all Canadian Forces members who served in the Persian Gulf War. Their efforts, and the dangers they faced while deployed, cannot go unnoticed or be allowed to be forgotten. It's vital that we recognize their dedication, service and sacrifice. That's why we will continue to work with other departments, like Veterans Affairs Canada, to recognize the enormous sacrifices made by those in uniform.
I am personally looking forward to the recommendations of this committee. I very much value the work of the committee in hearing from witnesses and coming forward with recommendations. I want to assure every member of this committee that your recommendations will be given every due consideration.
Thank you very much.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you for being here, Mr. Minister.
I think this is probably quite easy to do, so I'm not actually going to talk about the Persian Gulf veterans because I really think the onus is on you. Everyone here agrees, so we're studying that and I think it should be done.
Just quickly, Base Borden is in my riding. You said earlier that you're grateful for all the veterans and that there's an obligation because they served.
A report that came out—a second report within three months—from the budget officer basically says that the numbers have been fudged for us to meet our NATO obligations.
What message is that sending to people in the military and to their families when we're not even being realistic to the individuals?
:
The legal framework associated with the Pension Act covers World Wars I and II, and the Korean War, Mr. Chair.
The Veterans Well-being Act covers everything thereafter, granting authorities to the Minister of National Defence to declare special duty service—either the area or the operation.
The main difference between the two legislative frameworks is the actualization of the compensation and benefits that can be provided to both service members and veterans. For example, moving from the Pension Act towards the Veterans Well-being Act, benefits have been actualized to factor in a caregiver providing care to our veterans, as well as mental health.
If you would recall, Mr. Chair, after the two World Wars, a lot of the veterans were diagnosed with shell shock. It was in the very early days of mental health, so we were not attuned to all the complexities of mental health. Proper legislation was required in order to expand and actualize the services offered to both service members and veterans.
That's the essence of the difference between the two frameworks, Mr. Chair.
:
Thank you so much, Chair, and as always, everything is through the chair.
I'd like to welcome our witnesses today and thank them all so much for their service. They've all provided services in different ways. Thank you for being here to talk about this really important issue that matters to so many.
As I've sat through the testimony in this process, I've been reflective of one of the challenges, which is that the reality these veterans experience and live with every day does not seem to be reflected in the commemoration and resources that they receive. When we come down to that, I think that is just the honest truth. We know there's something there that's broken, and we all need to work together to fix it.
I think in true military fashion, the veterans, the Persian Gulf War veterans, are here not only to talk about their own experience, but they also want to see a process that includes all modern-day veterans. That is important as well. When we're looking at this, legislation is the key, and it is a process of reviewing what peace, conflict and war are. Legislatively, those are different things that we can make really clear, but unfortunately, the experience doesn't seem to fit the categorization.
My first question is for you, Minister. You said you've met with the veterans. I'm wondering if you could talk about whether there were any particular discussions around legislation. Are you prepared to explore that with your own cabinet moving forward?
:
As we look at the Veterans Well-being Act, if there are deficiencies—nobody has ever passed legislation that was perfect—I think it would be entirely appropriate that we should go back and look and see if we can make it better.
I look forward to your recommendations on that, because I'm in complete agreement that we should make sure that we provide our veterans with all the supports that they require and that they've earned from us.
Also, there's this other really important issue you raise about commemoration, acknowledgement and respect for their service. That's in many respects a more complicated question. We can deal with the compensation and the supports for our veterans, and I think we're in complete agreement that it should be as good as we can possibly do. On respect and commemoration, I'm also in complete agreement that we should show complete respect for their service and that we should properly commemorate it and honour it. Legislatively, retroactively declaring certain conflicts in a certain way, or all conflicts perhaps more generally, is something that we need to think about. These were not wars. Canada did not...Parliament did not declare a war against....
I understand that. However, I would say, Minister, that conflicts across the world are changing very quickly and rapidly and have been for many years. Therefore, especially looking at the framework of how the world is working, and our relationship with NATO, declaring a war is going to happen a lot less.
We need to figure that out. That's probably the crux of the issue here. When we ask people to serve, when we ask them to go and experience a war zone and thus to see what Canadians at home will not have to see and experience in the same way, we need to recognize that when they come home and to make sure that they get their supports.
Commemoration is really important. If you ask average school-age children right now, they would know World War I, World War II, and maybe the Korean War, but I don't think they would know the other ones in the same way. That means, as a country, we have not done our due diligence to make sure people understand that in our country there are people walking around doing that.
I don't have a lot of time. You said you cannot go back retroactively. In your role with this issue, and in the reality of all modern veterans, what can you do?
:
I have the authority, and I'm quite prepared to exercise it, to declare a conflict either as a special duty operation or special duty area. We all have a responsibility to elevate Canadians' understanding, appreciation and respect for the service of all of our armed forces members.
I don't disagree with you. The nature of conflict continues to evolve and we need to recognize the impact that conflict can have on all members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and, subsequently, on our veterans. We need to continue to explore ways in which we can honour their service and find ways...
I've listened very carefully to veterans. They make very strong points. Their advocacy is quite compelling. I'm quite willing to work with them, and with all of you to find ways in which we can honour and respect them.
Some of it may require legislative change, and that's the responsibility of Parliament. I'm trying to operate within the authorities currently bestowed upon me by existing Canadian legislation, but there are some limits to my ability to do what you would like me to do.
I would therefore ask this committee to consider what legislative tools might be required to actually accomplish that.
:
I understand that, Minister.
According to the , she said that her definition of war was different from the legal legislation. I asked the minister what legal legislation she was referring to. She said she didn't know, but that she would forward it.
The minister was referring to the Emergencies Act, something that your government is very familiar with.
There are two points there, but I'll read one of them:
war emergency means war or other armed conflict, real or imminent, involving Canada or any of its allies...
Minister, in your opinion, was Kuwait an ally of Canada?
Welcome to our witnesses.
I want to come back to the issue raised by Mr. Dowdall, someone for whom I have tremendous respect. He indicated—and I think the use of the word “fudged” was unfortunate—that the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report that was issued in the last couple of days did indicate some concern with the GDP numbers that were used as the base for the calculation to get to the percentage.
I don't think you had a full opportunity to explain or to address Mr. Dowdall's concern, but I do think it's of interest to the committee and to the public, so if you could, Minister, talk about the concern raised by the PBO in connection with the 2% of GDP NATO spending target and the allegation that somehow the numbers were fudged by the department, please.
:
Thanks very much, Mr. Casey. I think it's an important opportunity to clarify that, and I'm happy to be able to do so.
In 2014 at the Wales NATO summit, the Government of Canada committed to reach two per cent. It was a difficult challenge at that time because we were spending less than one per cent of our GDP on defence. Since then, we've more than doubled it. We've reiterated our commitment to meet the two per cent ratio, and at the NATO summit in Washington most recently in July, the outlined a plan to reach that target by 2032. It is going to require a significant increase in defence spending, which is absolutely required.
The target that we have agreed to meet is NATO's target. It's a NATO spending metric, and they've said that in establishing their two per cent metric, they would apply exactly the same calculation of national GDPs to all 32 members of NATO. It's based on the OECD projections to report on defence spending across the entire alliance. That's the target that Canada has committed to, reaching two per cent of what NATO defines as our GDP projection based on the OECD report.
Now, the PBO has used different projections for Canada's future GDP. Quite frankly, I'm encouraged by his optimism, and I think the projections reflect some great work that has been done to position Canada for future growth and increases in productivity and in our GDP.
I was also encouraged when he said that such expenditures are possible without unduly impacting the government's deficit-to-GDP ratio. That's all good news, but the only point I would make to the Parliamentary Budget Officer—whose work I'm always grateful for because it's always useful to help us get an understanding of this—is that the target that Canada has committed to is two per cent of the GDP as set by the OECD numbers that NATO has relied upon right across the alliance. I'm encouraged by the Parliamentary Budget Officer's more ambitious projections about our future. I also think that might give us an opportunity to make even more investments in national defence. Those investments are needed to meet the challenges of the current threat environment, the new technologies, climate change and all of those things that require much greater demands upon the Canadian Armed Forces. We must do more. We must invest more in defence and in their capabilities.
Certainly we are committed to meeting it, and I've been able to go to NATO and articulate, I think, a very clear and verifiable plan to our NATO allies on how we're going to get to the NATO spending metric of two per cent, but we also recognize that there's a lot of work to get that done, and Canadians are just going to have to put their heads down and get this done.
If there are future opportunities as a result of more growth in Canada, then we will, I think, benefit from being able to do even more.
:
Well, as you put it, it would be a very difficult thing to explain. I asked him questions about that, because the issue was raised with me as well.
I think the way the previous act was legislated was that it was so much money for a leg, a limb, a hand or whatever. I think the new act is a little bit more thoughtful and nuanced about what the impact of losing that leg is and whether or not it precludes a person from engaging in their employment after their service.
It also talks about the supports that are necessary. It's not just a straight cash payment for the loss of a limb; it talks about the supports that individual will need to live a productive, healthy and happy life with the loss of that limb.
I might suggest, as it's been explained to me, that it's slightly more nuanced than simply paying so much for a lost limb, and more about providing—
I was hoping you were going to say, “She has five minutes, just because I like her so much”, but it didn't work out for me.
Minister, I just want to say, first of all, that I really hope there will be some work done to harmonize the benefits. I do feel like this is part of it. Commemoration is a more significant part in my mind, but I think harmonizing the benefits makes sense.
I want to go back to something in my riding. I know, as you're smiling at me, that you already know what I'm going to ask about.
In Comox Valley, of course, the amazing 19 Wing Comox Valley Air Force Museum is working very hard fundraising a tremendous amount of money to build a pavilion to store the De Havilland Vampire Mark III jet.
This is so important to our area. We already have a beautiful space where many military planes are shown. It allows the community to engage and to learn about what those planes did and what it means for the tradition of the Royal Canadian Air Force.
We know that the Vampire first flew in service in September 1943 and was retired from the air force in 1966. It became the first jet to operate from an aircraft carrier and to fly the Atlantic crossing from the United Kingdom to Goose Bay. It has been declared a Canadian heritage artifact and now lives at 19 Wing Comox.
Sadly, it can't be viewed by the public, and yet it's such an important part of remembrance. Because the cockpit is made of wood, which I think all of us who've ever been on a plane think is quite tremendously amazing, it cannot sit outside, especially in our very rainy environment, because, of course, it will not stand up to that. A glass display case has been designed to house the Vampire, and I'm pleased to report that, before he passed, local Comox World War II ace James “Stocky” Edwards approved the building design and really wanted to see that aircraft made available.
The supporters of this have raised a significant amount of money and would love to see the federal government contribute a small amount to have their name attached to acknowledging this piece of our history. I'm just wondering if you will continue to work with me to find these little bits of resources.
First of all, I was very interested while listening to your response to previous questions about defence spending. I was struck by it. I would absolutely disagree with your characterization of a so-called plan to meet those targets years well after the current would be the Prime Minister of the country. It is not really a commitment to meet the targets.
Secondly, I hear you talking about the difference in the projections. Essentially, what you're telling us is that the only reason you believe you can meet these targets well into the future is because your government has driven the economy into the toilet. That's what you essentially said. Maybe the PBO is factoring in a future government, and that's why the projections are so much more optimistic.
An hon. member: Wow.
Mr. Blake Richards: We'll have to agree to disagree about your thoughts on that, for sure.
Let me turn to something else you were asked about previously: the prayer ban.
You indicated that you don't believe it is a prayer ban. However, the directive the chaplain general put out is clearly that. Canadians see it as that.
If you believe it's not a prayer ban, why was there a need, last year, before Remembrance Day, to announce a temporary reprieve, in order to enable prayer at Remembrance Day ceremonies?
:
The Freudian slip of “our intent” was very interesting.
He did not respond to the idea of why there was a need for a reprieve, but maybe I'll ask him a different way, then.
When Colonel Lisa Pacarynuk, the director of chaplaincy services, appeared on an Ottawa radio program, she was asked about people's concern about not being able to say prayers of any faith during Remembrance Day.... She said, “In certain settings,” of course, “in faith-based settings and church settings, they...of course will speak about their own faith and the role that God or their heavenly being has in that setting”. This is the key part: “But in a public setting,” from that perspective, “where there are people who do not believe in God or...who bring [other] perspectives, they will not use that [God] language.” She was very clear that you're not to reference any kind of God or higher being, and not to pray from any kind of faith perspective. That was clear on the radio program, and it was clear in the fact that there was a need to announce a reprieve.
How can you say there's no prayer ban?
Let me ask you this, as well: How many chaplains have faced disciplinary measures or had their chaplaincy revoked, as a result of this directive?
Thank you all for being with us today.
I certainly am looking forward to having an early Remembrance Day ceremony that's held in one of the rural communities in my riding, this Sunday. I'm looking forward to Father Frank Squires bringing the benediction. I can assure all in this room that I will certainly not chastise him for doing so.
To kind of bring us back, if we can, I, too, met with Persian Gulf veterans, actually, this morning.
It struck me that one of the representatives from that group said to me that that he wants to be an advocate. He wants to be a recruiting tool. With all this around the Persian Gulf not being considered a war, it's challenging for him. It got me thinking about recruitment and retention. We know the importance of service and how important recognizing and commemorating service is. We also know that potential young people are actually looking to DND and CAF as an employment opportunity.
I am wondering if you or potentially the general can share, in the limited we have left, the larger plan on recruitment and retention, focusing on that commemoration piece as a potential recruiting tool.
You're absolutely right. The work of commemoration helps educate Canadians of all ages about the contributions of the CAF and the veterans to the overall security of Canada, so they go hand in hand. We have an extensive program in place where active members are deployed to various speaking engagements during Veterans' Week to make sure that the work of commemoration is being accomplished and shared. This is extremely important and, of course, part of helping the CAF to become better known.
In terms of recruiting, we are acting in many different ways, because it's not just one thing that's going to make us successful. For example, we will be addressing short-term issues, the ones that we can change at the moment—right now—and in the next few months to ensure that we streamline and modernize our recruiting process. We're also addressing the long-term issues that require more time for implementation; here I'm thinking about the digitalization of our processes and modernizing the whole business process of recruiting.
We are already making changes, for example, in the medical standards, modernizing them to make sure they are fit for 2024. We are also looking at how we do security screenings, and we are, of course, working at onboarding permanent residents who are showing up strong at our doors and want to contribute to security. I will tell you, for example, that within one month, we onboarded over 188 permanent residents, which is a significant increase, and we're already starting to see changes in terms of increased capacity for onboarding new members of the CAF.
:
Thank you very much. We're going to stop right here.
I'd like to thank the witnesses for their testimony today.
We had with us the Honourable Bill Blair, Minister of National Defence, and from the Department of National Defence, we had General Jennie Carignan, chief of the defence staff, Canadian Armed Forces, and Major General Erick Simoneau, deputy commander, military personnel command.
Once again, thank you to our interpreters. Thank you to the staff.
This meeting is adjourned.