Veterans Affairs Committee on Oct. 7th, 2024

[Amy Meunier]

It's Bettina Fuchs, and her story will be profiled this month, along with those of several other women veterans who shared their stories with us. That will be shared throughout the month.

I might turn to Dr. Graham to cover the history of women in service.

I will say that over the last number of years, we've taken more steps to make sure we're capturing the stories of women veterans, building in lesson plans and learning material. Each year, we send out to educators five million packages of educational material that is related to commemoration recognition. We'll be focusing on women veterans so that as youth read this information, they become much more aware of the roles women have played over the years.

I'm sure Dr. Graham can tell us a bit about how women have played a key role throughout history.

[Dr. Sean Graham]

I will say briefly that women have always been an important part of the armed forces, dating back to the First World War, when they were primarily in a medical capacity as nurses. There were changes in the Second World War, but they were still in non-combat operations in theatre. They were in different capacities. Certainly, nursing was a significant part of that. As mentioned, the Persian Gulf was the first time they were in combat operations.

Of course, women are an essential component of the armed forces today, in all capacities.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

I have a friend who joined the infantry reserves back in the early 1990s, so I saw from her perspective that it was a big transition.

I'll go back to you, Assistant Deputy Minister. We recently finished a study in this committee about the experience of women veterans, and we heard that a lot of women don't even consider themselves veterans. Does that report inform your work going forward?

[Amy Meunier]

Yes, it does inform our work, and it certainly aligns with what we had been hearing directly from women veterans, such as the frustration of showing up at commemorative events and being asked if those were their uncle's, their grandfather's, their father's or their husband's medals.

Part of what we need to do is make sure that we are profiling women veterans so that people don't make assumptions about women in service. It's really important that we share those stories far and wide and be very clear about what their service was. Those of us in the military or commemorative space are familiar with it, but the average individual in any city across Canada or around the world should know very well where women have served and of their very immense contributions to the Canadian Armed Forces.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

In our last committee meeting, we heard from veterans—and I don't have to qualify that I don't fully understand everything—that they have certain medals they're allowed to wear over their heart, and there are other medals that have to be placed on the other side. We heard today that part of this is compensation for the veterans, the difference in the service, but a big part of it is feeling valued for the service and the work they did when they were sent overseas.

Major General, I see you're reaching for your button, so I'll let you start. Thank you.

[MGen Erick Simoneau]

I'll speak to that, if I may.

Thank you for the question. It's a great question.

Medals are not related to benefits or compensation. They're really about recognition. There's an order of merit on where the medal stands on our chest, but it really has to be provided by a head of state or equivalent, so that's what drives it to be worn on one side or the other side.

I had the exact same conversation with my veteran friends before the committee appearance. As long as it's provided to you by a recognized head of state, it's worn on this side, the left side. All the ones that we receive from other countries, other states, usually go on the other side from the Canadian decorations. Those are the criteria.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you. I think that's my time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Ms. Hepfner.

Colleagues, I'd like to make a proposal that we start with a round of six minutes each, and we will have five minutes to close, or would you like to go back to five minutes as usual, and so on?

I said at the beginning that we would start at six minutes each. Because we have time to have a six-minute round, would you like longer questions instead of five minutes? You can split the six minutes.

It will be six minutes, then.

I'd like to start with Mrs. Wagantall for six minutes, please.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Thank you so much, Chair.

Thanks to you all for being here.

I have my notes and I'll do what I can. I've been here for nine years, and I still don't understand it. I hear all the time that our veterans live in confusion. When you spoke to the fact, I heard that there are categories now in compensation, and there are many more benefits, and that along with the new veterans charter have come higher backlogs and more of a sense of insurance requirements to prove over and over again that they qualify for what they're applying for.

I think we have a level of sanctuary trauma that we hadn't seen prior to the new veterans charter. I appreciate the challenges that you folks have, because I understand that your role here is to implement and do what you can to improve veterans' circumstances.

Would I be accurate in saying that we're still in the circumstances of trying to transition to the new veterans charter in the hearts and minds of our veterans? I'll take a quick yes or no from someone.

Mr. Tessier, do you sense that? Do you know that?

[Pierre Tessier]

Mr. Chair, I don't believe I can speak for the veterans who were here previously as well.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry I didn't write down names; I should have.

World War I, World War II and the Korean conflict, that section of combat that our armed forces have experienced, you indicate were defined by the large effort—just the volume and size of it, and the greatest number of casualties—whereas modern-day war, it would appear.... We use this term “modern-day veterans”, and you determine that it's no longer wartime but that they're in a special area or special operation. You indicate that you analyze the risk, and that's along with hardship.

Is the risk analyzed before they go, during that service, or afterwards? How do you come up with the level of risk? We hear from these veterans that they went in thinking one thing, and then they were told, “This is how it is now,” and then what they experienced was war in their hearts and minds.

Go ahead, Mr. Girouard.

[BGen Luc Girouard]

Certainly today's serving members deploy under the current legislation. There is a level of analysis done at the highest level of the Canadian Armed Forces, and recommendations are made to the minister prior to their deploying.

That said, there's nothing better than having boots on the ground or eyes on the ground to offer a specific assessment. Through the initiating directive from the chief of the defence staff, the chief orders the force employers to make an assessment and a justification for special duty operation or special duty area.

There is also a report—it is a classified report—that is generated by the task force commander who is on the ground in that area, making recommendations related to that risk. They consider the threat intelligence report as well, and that is all rolled into one report.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Everyone who goes over to serve, then, would be under that same umbrella, regardless of what they potentially could or actually did experience. I don't see a lot of difference there because, quite honestly, I could never do this. I know it. Just the thought of it is enough.

For those who are suddenly going over and being told this, is that an umbrella of care that is guaranteed for everyone who has boots on the ground and is part of that theatre?

[BGen Luc Girouard]

There is an initial assessment, and each mission evolves. Every hardship and risk level is adjusted as the mission evolves. The initial tasks related to that mission might evolve over time, and so would the hardship and risk levels, which are then tied to specific levels of compensation.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

I think I'm hearing you correctly. If I were going over there, I would go, “Forget it, man. You're not telling me what I'm getting into.” I understand that in a lot of ways, you can't know until it's happening. However, with where I see war going in this world, can you please explain to me how you would ever think that you can even determine those circumstances to the level you would need to? We are going into a whole new world of combat, and we're probably not going to have what was, in the old days, the largest effort or the greatest number of casualties in the same way that we have before.

[MGen Erick Simoneau]

For what we call “Roto 0”, which are the first boots and sets of eyes on the ground, they're not quite sure what they're getting into, and that's why we're very deliberate in initiating new operations.

We send a small team of experts to make those assessments. Once they're done, the information is brought back to Canada, and it informs everything, from compensation and benefits to training and making sure our troops know what they're getting into. First-class forces prep our troops to go to deployment.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

If that's the case and you're truly doing that, how would you not come back and say that those circumstances, such as in Kuwait and Rwanda, were war? How do you come back and not...? Is it because war no longer exists within the legislation of Canada's...?

That's a yes. That's the bottom line.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Quickly, if you have a....

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Was that six minutes?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Yes, it was exactly six.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

That was a very fast six minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Now let's go to Mr. Randeep Sarai for six minutes, please.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all of the members who serve and all of the rest of you for participating and actually shedding light on this.

Before I go into my question, my colleague Mr. Casey was finishing at the time and wasn't able to....

Ms. Meunier, maybe you can table the answer to his question afterward. I think he was asking, if I'm right, about commemoration for Persian Gulf War vets, how it has been done and what's available to them. Maybe you can table that at the end.

My next question would be for the historian, Dr. Graham.

If you could maybe highlight.... What we're hearing here, and I think we're all very interested in this, is that currently there is nothing to table something as a war.

What would you see as process for people like the Persian Gulf War veterans to have a distinction be made that they are war veterans? What is the process?

Would it be this committee, by what we hear and recommend, and then an order in council by the Minister of National Defence? What's the process that you see, based on the legislation?

You've probably studied it more than anyone else here.

[Dr. Sean Graham]

Thank you for that question.

I'll note that I'm a historian and not a legislative expert by any means.

In terms of the reclassification of the Persian Gulf from special duty area to wartime service, I can't speak on that process contemporarily and what has happened. I've studied the designation of Korea in the past and how that had changed. In the past, it was through an order in council.

Relative to this particular change, I would yield to my colleagues in policy and legislation currently, as opposed to looking at it from a historical point of view.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Historically, it was done by an order in council.