National Defence Committee on Dec. 3rd, 2024

[Steven Harris]

Mr. MacDougall, I might ask you to weigh in on that one, please.

[Shawn MacDougall]

Certainly.

As we mentioned, exposure is complicated. I heard what the Brigadier-General from the CAF said in the first hour. I think she talked about cigarette smoke. Exposure to second-hand smoke is different from smoking for 25 years.

We're always striving to, number one, increase our knowledge and increase our scientific evidence base. Within Veterans Affairs, as I mentioned, we do have a team of physicians who work to establish what we call internally entitlement eligibility guidelines for a whole host of conditions. Specifically on exposures, we have a document, or a database, if you will, of the information that CAF has in their records around exposure sites and where certain chemicals may have been used. We also have information included in that from partners, from other countries where we've collaborated and where we've had joint missions and joint operations. Perhaps it was an American lead, we supported that and they have information. We have that at our disposal.

The other important piece we have is research on causality and the effect of exposure. It's really important to distinguish. On the one hand, we need to understand that an exposure happened, but we also have to understand the effect of the exposure. That research could come from many, many different sources. We work with academia in Canada. We rely on the work of other partners as well, such as Five Eyes countries.

That research, that information, is ever evolving and ever improving. I think that's the point. We've set up a process or a framework internally in the department to continually learn and to continually grow in our understanding so that as the knowledge and research evolves, we'll be more responsive and able to provide veterans with the benefits they're entitled to.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you.

From your response, I'm going to take it that there are ongoing studies and data collection initiatives that track veterans and their health care over time. Can you tell me what mechanisms are in place to monitor those long-term health care outcomes for veterans who may have been exposed to hazardous chemicals?

[Steven Harris]

Maybe Mr. Svenson can weigh in on some of the research under way now.

[Nathan Svenson]

I'll start by just outlining that in order to conduct a longitudinal study like that, you need three segments of information. First, you need information about the time of exposure in their medical state, the medical state of an individual at the time of exposure. Second, you need information about their health outcomes at the end of the day. Third, we need the scientific evidence around that, showing how their individual experience compares against other large-scale studies. This is a challenge, I have to say, in the Canadian context because their health care records are maintained by the Canadian Armed Forces when they're serving, and their health records are maintained in a different jurisdiction entirely after they're released, by the provincial authority in which they live.

Due to privacy laws, we as a federal government don't automatically have access to their old health care record from the province. We can ask for information from the individual, and we can ask for information when the individual comes to us from National Defence. In terms of doing a large-scale study, we can't proactively go out and get current health outcome information from people in the general public, which includes all veterans. We can do it on an individual basis, for adjudication purposes, when they come to us and provide us with information about their own health situation. The exception is with the help of Statistics Canada, which maintains a growing set of databases around health outcomes for the general population. We cannot see individual results in the databases that are held by Health Canada, but we can do aggregate studies. The cancer incidence study that we're conducting now is an example of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Unfortunately, we're going to have to leave it there.

You have two and a half minutes, Madam Normandin.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Harris, I'll continue on the reproductive health issue, as I know it has been discussed at length at Veterans Affairs Canada.

Let's say the harm is done to a person while they're in active service. Let's take the example of a woman who suffers infertility during her active service, so she suffers the harm when she is younger. Once she is released from service, a causal link is established between her infertility and exposure to a toxic agent.

To the extent that the harm was not suffered after this person was released, which of the two departments would be responsible for paying compensation to her: the Department of National Defence or the Department of Veterans Affairs?

[Steven Harris]

If the veteran's health is impacted, it would be Veterans Affairs. A request could be made to that department, which would decide to provide compensation or support.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Even if the injury was sustained during that individual's active service, it would be Veterans Affairs Canada. Thank you very much.

I have a somewhat hypothetical question. There is a lot of talk about cancer cases. Treatments are often covered by Quebec and the provinces through their health care systems. Those treatments are fairly expensive. Has an assessment ever been done of the amount that the provinces have to pay to compensate for problems caused by active service, by the Canadian Armed Forces? I imagine these are large amounts.

[Steven Harris]

To my knowledge, there has been no study on this issue. I know that Veterans Affairs spends a lot of money to support the people impacted by their service. The vast majority of payments made to people who have suffered an injury or illness as a result of their service are paid by the federal government.

We partner with the provinces on some of the mental health initiatives and so on. In each province, there are offices for problems related to occupational stress and so on. That's paid for by the federal government, but it's provided by the provinces. Partnerships also exist in such cases.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Ms. Mathyssen, you have two and a half minutes.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

For CAF members, military families, and the DND employees who have been exposed or have problems because of the contamination that they're exposed to, repeatedly the Government of Canada has used ex gratia payments to settle the claims related to the lack of protections the government has provided those workers. An example of that is that the government made ex gratia payments to some victims of Agent Orange in New Brunswick.

I'm wondering how often that happens. If you could provide me with that information that's administered through Veterans Affairs and with why the government decides to base the compensation on the idea of financial liability, that would be great.

[Steven Harris]

I'm not sure I can answer all of the elements of that particular question.

With respect to Agent Orange, I know it was in 2007 when the Government of Canada introduced a one-time, tax-free ex gratia payment that resulted in 5,000 payments being made to eligible individuals.

With respect to Canadian Armed Forces members and the RCMP, the impacts of illness from their service are adjudicated through Veterans Affairs programming. There is disability programming for both pain and suffering compensation and a pension for life, and the Veterans Well-being Act. The Pension Act remains in place for members of the RCMP.

Veterans Affairs does not adjudicate anything with respect to civilian employees of the RCMP, the Canadian Armed Forces or DND. That would be a separate process. I would not at all be able to comment on any ex gratia payments that take place from that point of view, but I know the number with respect to Agent Orange.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Will you be able to provide that to the committee?

[Steven Harris]

Sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You have 30 seconds.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

What's the process for the government to decide they're going to make those payments in that way, in order to limit liability in that format?

[Steven Harris]

Mr. Chair, unfortunately, I'm not in a position to answer on decision-making in the Government of Canada regarding ex gratia payments. I'm not familiar with what that process has been, honestly.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Could you provide it?

[Steven Harris]

Mr. Chair, I could certainly provide some general documents around ex gratia payments and how they're used. That's something we could provide to the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

It's a Department of Justice decision as to whether it's ex gratia or pursuant to a recognized liability. Whatever you can provide is good.

Ms. Gallant, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

I will go back to PFAS.

Compared to the civilian population, are incidents of infertility rates, pregnancy-induced hypertension, pre-eclampsia, increases in cholesterol, lower immunity, testicular cancer, kidney cancer, fetal child development, liver damage and increased thyroid disease among CAF members exposed to PFAS higher or the same?

[Steven Harris]

Unfortunately, Mr. Chair, we wouldn't be able to provide any specific numbers around PFAS exposure with respect to Veterans Affairs and their clients.

As I noted, what we have are people who apply for a medical condition. The cause of it isn't necessarily tracked in the same way. We wouldn't have statistics available on that.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

There isn't a study that compares the Canadian Armed Forces and firefighters with the general population as to whether or not there's a higher incidence. Okay.

Have there been any reports of anthrax to VAC by serving or former members?