Veterans Affairs Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 104 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.

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 of the recognition of Persian Gulf veterans and the definition of wartime service.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders.

Rachel Blaney is joining us virtually.

I'd like to welcome Anita Vandenbeld to the committee.

As you already know, all comments must be addressed through the chair.

Mr. Desilets will start things off.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Chair, I think this is meeting number 106, not 104.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Is this meeting number 106 or 104?

You're absolutely right, Mr. Desilets. Thank you.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

I'm watching you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Yes.

Now, without further ado, let's hear from our witnesses.

I would like to welcome our witnesses with us today.

From the Persian Gulf Veterans of Canada, we have the president, Mr. Harold Davis, and the vice-president, Mr. Mike McGlennon. Welcome.

You will have five minutes for your opening statement, and then members of the committee will ask you some questions.

The floor is yours, please, Mr. Davis.

[Harold Davis, President, Persian Gulf Veterans of Canada]

Thank you for the opportunity to address this committee on behalf of the Persian Gulf Veterans of Canada.

My name is Harold Davis, and I'm the president. With me is Mike McGlennon, the vice-president. Our organization represents over 4,200 veterans.

We appear before you today to advocate the legal recognition of Persian Gulf veterans as wartime service veterans. This acknowledgement is long overdue and critical to the dignity, health and welfare of those who voluntarily served.

The objective of this study is to obtain definitions of “war”, “wartime service” and “special duty service”, and to establish the process of determining and criteria for veterans' benefits.

We have spent the last 10 years searching for National Defence and Veterans Affairs Canada policies for these definitions, without success. This lack of fairness and transparency is egregious. National Defence is the government department responsible for these definitions and should be asked to provide copies of their policies for committee review, if they exist.

Since 1950 to today, when governments that deploy our military on overseas operations, they are initially placed by National Defence on active duty and classified as special duty veterans.

In 1981, Korean War veterans were redesignated as wartime service veterans, 28 years after they returned home. This legal precedence reflects that the Government of Canada has effected military service classification status changes when deemed appropriate and can do so in the future.

In 1990, under UN authority, Canada, along with 41 other coalition partners, liberated Kuwait. It was the largest concentration of military might in a theatre since World War II. Additionally, this was the first time Canadian servicewomen were deployed in a combat role.

Gulf veterans will tell you that they were in a war. Ask the pilot who flew a bombing mission against the fourth-largest military at the time. Ask the navy veteran who sailed into a minefield to assist in the rescue of a United States Navy ship that struck a mine. Ask a nurse who treated prisoners of war during the conflict, or ask the veteran who was under numerous Scud missile attacks.

Despite their service, Persian Gulf veterans in Canada have not been properly recognized as “wartime service”. This slight has ramifications upon military service records, military history, accurate commemoration and the medical benefits available to the effected veterans.

Our advocacy has received support from Korean War veterans, UN peacekeepers, NATO veterans, AMVETS, over 75 members of Parliament, 10 senators and even the late prime minister, Brian Mulroney, just to name a few.

The Governor General has issued a Gulf and Kuwait Medal, with bar, for service during the actual war, and both the CDS and Governor General approved six battle honours issued to Persian Gulf units for active participation with a formed and armed enemy. However, the pilots and sailors of those same units continue to be denied the same level of recognition by National Defence. Why are we being denied?

The country of Kuwait also recognized our service and issued the Kuwait Liberation Medal—I have it here—which we have been denied the right to wear with our regular medals.

As a country, we owe it to these veterans to honour their service with the same recognition that is afforded to others who have fought in wars on behalf of Canada. Designating Persian Gulf veterans as wartime service veterans will provide equality with prior wartime service veterans and restore a sense of pride and honour to veterans who feel forgotten, ensuring that their place in Canadian military history is accurately commemorated.

Persian Gulf War medical insurance coverage was initially provided under the Pension Act, which is also where you will find all preceding war service veterans listed.

Should we be reclassified to “wartime service”, our ill and injured veterans should be given the choice to elect coverage, either under the Pension Act or the 2006 Veterans Well-being Act.

Persian Gulf war veterans are seeking placement upon the National War Memorial alongside those who have served Canada in times of war.

In closing, I call upon the committee to act decisively, and I strongly recommend that Persian Gulf veterans be reclassified as “wartime service” veterans. Their sacrifices will no longer be minimized, and their service will be honoured in the same manner as those who have served in major conflicts.

Veterans served Canadians and all political parties, and we ask the committee to provide non-partisan solutions that will ensure our overdue honour is restored.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you very much, Mr. Davis.

Also, Mr. McGlennon, thank you for your service.

You can't hear? There's no sound? Let us check.

Does it work now? Okay. That's perfect. Thank you so much.

As you know, you're going to have questions in French also. Be prepared for that.

Now, for six minutes, I'd like to invite Mr. Blake Richards to start.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

I appreciate you guys for being here today and pushing for the change that you're pushing for.

My role is that of shadow minister for Veterans Affairs. That's often referred to as “the critic” for Veterans Affairs, and for most people that is associated with someone who's complaining or is expressing negative thoughts or sentiments. Really, I don't see it that way. I see it more as the true root of the word “critic”, which is to be a judge, and that can apply in a lot of places.

For example, for you guys, when you served in the Canadian Armed Forces, you would, I'm sure, have received constructive criticism during training to help you be better prepared for combat. That's what would have been expected in any role. My role as the official critic in terms of the government is that I really try to do what I can to point out what I think the expectations of veterans would be of the government, much like for you when you served and the expectations for you as members of the Canadian Armed Forces would have been made clear.

My question for you, based on that, would be this: What are your expectations of the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Prime Minister with regard to recognizing wartime service?

[Harold Davis]

I think you should answer this one, Mike.

[Mike McGlennon, Vice-President, Persian Gulf Veterans of Canada]

On “expectations”, there's not a simple answer.

In our opinion, it involves both National Defence and Veterans Affairs. Neither department is singly responsible for resolving our issues.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Yes, and I understand that. There's no question that it is the defence minister in consultation with the Veterans Affairs minister.

Let me rephrase the question. What would your expectations of the government be in terms of addressing this recognition of wartime service?

[Mike McGlennon]

As Harold said in his testimony, we're looking for a redesignation or a reclassification of our service status from “special duty area” to “wartime service” veterans. From discussions with senior Veterans Affairs officials, I know that it has an effect on their annual commemoration budget, what they spend money on and what they choose to place into their calendar for events.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

As much as it's great that we're having this study in committee, is there any reason you're aware of that this change couldn't be made right now? I don't think it requires a vote in the House of Commons. I don't think it requires a study or a report from this committee. I don't think it even requires new laws to be introduced. If this change could be made today—and I believe it could—why do you think it hasn't happened yet? What do you think are the reasons it hasn't happened?

[Mike McGlennon]

We don't believe that National Defence has any policies in existence.

We have been unsuccessful in finding out if they have a policy. Normally, governments place their policies out for public consumption, with fullness and transparency. It's a QR&O, Queen's Regulations and Orders. It's a Library of Parliament document. It's out there for everybody to see.

The committee is sitting here today and trying to get to the root of some problems. If there were policy documents that existed and were in place, then we wouldn't need to have a meeting—

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

That's right.

[Mike McGlennon]

—or the meeting would be about something else: “Why haven't you followed existing policy?”

We cannot call out National Defence and say that they don't have a policy, but I would like to see it, and I do believe that you would like to see it. I would ask that you ask National Defence to produce it so that we can look at it. If we have something to read or to look at, then it could lead to a different change of discussion: “Why haven't you followed the policy?”

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

It boils down to this for me, and this is circling back to my initial comments about my role here, which is really to try to push for the veterans' expectations of the government: You guys formed your group in 2017, I think, and you've been advocating since then. You're telling us that you're not aware of any policy that exists. It raises the question of, “Why not?” Why is there not a policy, when there is the ability to do that, when there is the ability to act on this? It could happen right now.

In that role as critic or judge of the government, I have to say that not only would I give the government a poor review, but I would have to admonish it for the fact that they have claimed to express support. I've heard Liberal members—as I've heard all members—say they support what you guys are trying to do. They could take action on it right now, and they haven't. I find that frustrating. Hopefully, we can get a recommendation out of this committee, and hopefully the government will actually start listening for a change.

[Mike McGlennon]

Yes—

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Go ahead, sir, quickly.

[Mike McGlennon]

This lack of a policy is long-standing and beyond. It started well before the establishment of the current serving government. We are seeking non-partisan solutions to this problem. It has been 33 years. There is a lot of blame to be thrown around, and I am not blaming the current serving government today for our current issues.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Richards.

Now let's go to Mr. Wilson Miao for six minutes, please.

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I'd like to thank our witnesses for being here today.

Mike and Harold, thank you for the service you've done for our country and especially for sharing your expertise in this area.

Both of you, along with over 4,000 veterans, served in the Persian Gulf War. Could you please share more with the committee about this operation and whether both of you were deployed under special duty service or wartime service?

[Harold Davis]

I went to the gulf on HMCS Athabaskan.We sailed over and ended up at Port Said before entering the Suez Canal. We were told that we couldn't go in there because an order in council had to come out to put us on active duty.

Now, you can ask the 300 people on my ship, or the over almost 1,000 people on all three ships, what that meant. The only thing we were told at that time was that we were going on active duty, and I think they said that they took out the clause that they can shoot you if you don't obey a direct order.

That's all we basically knew going in there, so active duty, to us, was not that much different from everyday duty, but come to find out, it's a big difference between active duty and just sitting-at-home duty, and we didn't really understand it.

I think that today a lot of veterans still don't understand it, because, as Mike said earlier, where's the policy that states what it all is and what it means to the veteran who is going overseas, period? For us, in going to the Persian Gulf, we were told, “You're coming home when you get home.”

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

On that, let's talk about the benefit side.

You mentioned in your testimony the difference between the Pension Act and the Veterans Well-being Act. For those who served in the Persian Gulf War, what type of benefit do you have eligible access to for service during that time?

[Mike McGlennon]

I will speak for myself. I do believe that.... We're split medical insurance, both Harold and I, and that would also apply to our membership.

I had medical issues. Because of the timing, when I submitted my claims, they went in under the Pension Act, because they preceded the establishment of the 2006 Veterans Well-being Act.

Because the Persian Gulf was a 1991 event, the preponderance of our medical claims, if there were any, would have occurred under the Pension Act. As we get older, if we have new issues and are able to tie them to military service, Minister Petipas Taylor's reference manual says that because we are special duty area veterans, medical issues will be covered under the Veterans Well-being Act.

If we were wartime service veterans, the case could be made that wartime service currently is covered only under the Pension Act. The members could be given a choice on each claim: Would you like this covered under the Pension Act or would you like it covered under the Veterans Well-being Act?