National Defence Committee on Oct. 8th, 2009

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Hawn, you and I are both biased in that assessment, but I am led to believe from objective—

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

From other assessments as well, not yours and mine—

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

—from other assessments and other sources, including other countries.... I'm sure that as part of your study you examined the health care system for the forces in other countries. Yes, I am very much of the view that we're the best in the world when it comes to responding to the health care needs of our soldiers, sailors, and airmen and airwomen. We're committed to keeping that standard and to build and improve upon it every day.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

With the knowledge that the glass is never going to be full, that we'll always be filling the glass.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Sadly, you are not able to put a person back together.

We had some very emotional speeches last night from a number of people. Lieutenant-Colonel Grenier, who was given an award last night in recognition, talked in particular about the stitching back together of people in a psychological way, which is a very complex process. But the support of the families in bringing people into the process, diagnosing early, having the available counsellors and individuals who are there to help people deal with these issues.... In particular, there is more and more research and greater understanding of post-traumatic stress and of how we move forward to treat those very real psychological injuries. They're not as visible as the physical injuries, but they're just as debilitating and just as important to treat.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, if I may, I want to come back to one issue to clarify.

There are two reports pending; one has been completed. I didn't want there to be any misunderstanding—this is in relation to Mr. Harris' question. In the case involving abuse of Afghan children, the board of inquiry report has not been finalized. If that's the report that Mr. Harris is seeking, that report has not been completed. However, there is a different report that has been completed. It confirmed, as he said in his question, that no criminal actions were committed by Canadian Forces, and therefore Canadian Forces were exonerated. That report is available.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much.

I sincerely want to thank you for joining us today. The information that you have conveyed to members of the committee will help them a great deal with their future work.

I want to thank you very much for being with us today.

We continue with the business at hand with senior officials from the Department of National Defence.

So, members, I will go on with our witnesses.

Thank you, and we'll see you another time, Minister.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Madam Neville.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Nobody is listening.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

I think we will suspend for a minute, and after that we'll come back.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

We now continue with the business at hand.

All the witnesses are here. We are now ready to start again, and I will give the floor to Madam Neville.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you to those who remained behind.

I have a number of questions, all of which are unrelated. I'm going to put them out there. I would have been happier if the minister were here to answer them, but I trust that you will do what you can.

My first question relates to the inquiry and the invocation of section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act. Can you say on what criteria it was invoked in inhibiting an inquiry? We see simply a bit of a credibility gap, and I would like very much to know on what basis it was invoked. That's question number one.

The second question is totally unrelated. I appreciate very much the minister's comments about support to families of military personnel related to post-traumatic stress disorder and whatever. One of the issues I and many of my colleagues are concerned about—and we have talked with many military families—is that health care provided to military personnel is not extended to their families. If it is, it is done on an ad hoc basis. The minister himself in his comments made some remark about the support of families. There needs to be a holistic approach with families, and I question why the health care isn't extended to families.

My third question is again totally unrelated.

Mr. Fonberg, I'm sure you're well aware of the issue of Kapyong Barracks in my riding of Winnipeg--South Centre. You know it is a decommissioned army base and that there are currently court proceedings going on. A decision has been made. We do not know whether there will be an appeal as yet, but we do know that there are a number of vacant houses on that base.

What would it take for the Department of National Defence to make those houses available to the public? We know the criteria that are in place through the regulations, but we also know anecdotally that there are a number of people who have access to those houses who do not fit under the regulations, and we know there's a very low rental rate in Manitoba.

Those are three unrelated questions. I think my colleague has a fourth one, and then we'll ask you to answer.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I have a very quick question.

Back in February, Vice-Admiral, I asked you about the joint support ship program. The issue, of course, was a priority for the government in 2006. When are we resuming the procurement process for the JSS program, and when will these requirements be released?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

You have two and a half minutes to answer all of those questions.

[Robert Fonberg, Deputy Minister, Department of National Defence]

Mr. Chairman, I will start with Mr. Pentney on the issue of section 38.

[William F. Pentney, Associate Deputy Minister, Department of National Defence]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the question and the opportunity to appear.

I don't have the text of section 38 before me, but broadly speaking, what it requires is a witness who believes their evidence may involve issues that would impinge on national security or the defence or international relations of Canada, or in this case a counsel who, believing that evidence that might be tabled in a public proceeding could involve those things, takes steps to prevent that from happening and undergoes a process to review it to determine whether or not the release of that information would in fact impinge on national security, the defence of Canada, or international relations, and if so, to redact or remove those parts of the evidence.

The government, like all other parties, is bound by section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act and is taking steps to simply follow the procedures that the act sets out to determine this. It is an awkward proceeding, admittedly. It might be easier in many ways to let it out. But once the cat is out of the bag in respect of something that truly does impinge on national security, defence, or international relations, it's impossible to rein it back in, in a public proceeding.

So that's the balance that section 38 tries to strike. In this case, on the belief that there is evidence that could affect the national defence or national security of Canada, steps have been taken to try to follow the process that section 38 sets out.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

I have more questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Your time is up.

Can you answer in 30 seconds?

[Major-General W. Semianiw, Chief of Military Personnel, Department of National Defence]

Yes, I can, Mr. Chair.

To be very clear, we're talking about both health care and mental health care, which is a component of the overall health care case. My response will address the mental health issue.

I want to remind members of this committee of the policy currently in place. If a man or woman in uniform develops a mental health illness caused by the military, their family is provided that support.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Do you mean support or health care?

[MGen W. Semianiw]

We provide mental health care. They are seen by psychiatrists, psychologists, or mental health nurses if it is a condition that actually began with the individual in place--the Canadian Forces member.

For example, I go to Afghanistan and come back and develop PTSD. If I'm back home getting help, we will not just support the family; we will provide mental health support through psychiatrists, psychologists, and mental health practitioners. That's the policy in place.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

I would like to have a larger discussion on this, but clearly there's no time.