Veterans Affairs Committee on Oct. 31st, 2024

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

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?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

First of all, Terry, I think you have grossly misrepresented what the Parliamentary Budget Officer actually said. He had his own calculation of GDP and he used terminology—

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

No, Minister. Once again, you guys are changing numbers in your favour. That's not really what's going on here, Mr. Minister, if you read the report.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

If you'd like an answer, I'd be happy to provide you with one.

Canada has committed to reach 2% of GDP. It's a NATO spending target. NATO determines GDP for all 32 members of NATO using the OECD calculation of anticipated GDP. That's the commitment that we've made—

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Are you saying the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report is wrong?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

That's not correct, but that's the commitment we've made.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

The time is up. I'm sorry, guys.

I now give the floor to Mr. Sarai for six minutes.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister Blair, General Carignan and General Simoneau, for attending this meeting. It's always a pleasure to have such distinguished guests as you attending this committee.

Minister Blair, you mentioned in your opening remarks that this is not a finger-pointing exercise.

To set the record straight for the committee and to set the scene for today's committee meeting, can you clarify exactly what your role is in relation to the designation of classification of services for veterans?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Basically, the legislation provides that the Minister of National Defence can either declare a conflict as a special duty area—it's a specific geographic area outside of Canada where members are exposed to conditions of elevated risk—or declare it a special duty operation. These are missions and operations involving elevated risk that may take place inside or outside of Canada.

I have a list of the number of times that previous defence ministers have made that designation. Some of them have been in Canada. Most of them have been expeditionary and external to Canada.

That's my authority: It's to declare particular engagements and missions, or areas, according to the expert advice that I would receive from the Canadian Armed Forces.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Thank you.

General Simoneau, could you please explain the legal difference between the Pension Act and the Veterans Well-being Act, as well as the tangible changes that this has had to benefits and the evolution of benefit delivery over the years?

[Major-General Erick Simoneau, Deputy Commander, Military Personnel Command, Department of National Defence]

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.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

My understanding is it's not a superior versus a subsuperior format; they're just two different types of programs. One is more exclusively monetary versus the new, modernized one, which is more holistic and has more aspects covered. It's a different framework.

[MGen Erick Simoneau]

Absolutely, Mr. Chair. I agree with this statement.

The new framework allows...and is flexible. I'm sure you recall our Veterans Affairs' colleagues from an earlier appearance. They stated, for example, that under the current framework, the benefits and compensation have been adjusted 19 times since 2006 to ensure that we adjust those benefits to the needs of our populations—both servicemen and women and veterans.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

For this one, I'll go to Minister Blair.

We have heard about two aspects. One is the compensation between the Pension Act and the Veterans Well-being Act, and the other is commemoration. I think a lot of the Persian Gulf War veterans feel they are not commemorated in the same light as other war veterans.

Is there something that can be done in that respect? One part is semantics of what framework of compensation or pensions they have and the other part is the commemoration. Is there a special designation that can be considered subsequent to this report?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

I'm very interested in working with Veterans Affairs and in consultation with the veterans. I believe very sincerely that they are deserving of our highest respect and commemoration and acknowledgement of their service.

I'm not aware of any particular legislative instrument. I'm bound by and my authorities come from Canadian legislation. The Veterans Well-being Act primarily talks about these issues and my authorities to designate. I don't think it is really relevant to that designation. However, I'm quite prepared to explore ways in which we can acknowledge their service in a way that is meaningful to them and meaningful to all Canadians. I think it's important that we do so.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Thank you, Minister.

Really quickly, General Carignan, we know how important the transition from military to civilian life is for our members and their families. In fact, the committee has undertaken a study on that very subject.

Can you tell us more about the work and services the Canadian Forces transition team does and offers to support members transitioning to civilian life?

[General Jennie Carignan, Chief of the Defence Staff, Canadian Armed Forces, Department of National Defence]

Mr. Chair, good morning.

Thank you for the question.

Our transition group was established and founded to support members on active duty who are transitioning toward civilian life, so it provides services that allow them to understand the benefits postretirement and accompanies them on a personal basis as well. We need to understand that for service members who have been serving for many years, there's a level of identity that is very strong in terms of belonging to the CAF, and on a personal basis as well. That needs to be done properly as members transition toward civilian life.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, General Carignan.

I now give the floor to Luc Desilets, the committee's second vice-chair, for the next six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon to my colleagues and thank you to our guests.

General Carignan, your appointment is extraordinary and exceptional. I congratulate you on that, but I especially congratulate the people who chose you and I commend them.

Minister, do you feel that the Gulf War was indeed a war?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

I would use the term colloquially. I appreciate—and I'm sure the committee would recognize this—that within the legal definition, there is no “for example”. There is no defined service in Veterans Affairs legislation, and certainly not in the Veterans Well-being Act, that enables me to declare it a war as such. However, at the same time, it was an armed conflict in which people put their lives at risk.

Colloquially and in my view, it meets a war.

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

In your opinion, was Canada at war, yes or no?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

No. Well, we were not at war within the legal definition of war. Normally, we would define the war as a declared war, as we did in the First World War and Second World War. Under the old Pension Act, we included the Korean War as a war, but there is no legislative way to do that retroactively.

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

In your opinion, were our Canadian soldiers deployed in a war zone?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Well, I think a war was being fought there, but at the same time, under existing Canadian law, it was not defined as a war per se. It was actually a UN deployment where we sent our people.

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

I'm trying to understand the prevailing logic here and in the various departments.

The Canadian military was operating and fighting in a war zone that was the Persian Gulf. Okay. You say that Canada was not at war in this conflict. I accept that.

In that case, however, can you explain to me why the Canadian government would have felt the need to create an emergency war cabinet for that conflict? Indeed, a war cabinet was created on an emergency basis.