NDVA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA DÉFENSE NATIONALE ET DES ANCIENS COMBATTANTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, April 30, 1998

• 0904

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.)): Good morning, everyone. Welcome to this meeting. This morning we have General Baril. Good morning, sir. We also have with us Colonel McLellan.

I believe, General, you have small opening remarks and then we'll go from there. Go ahead, sir.

[Translation]

General J.M.G. Baril (Chief of the Defence Staff, Department of National Defence): Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

Distinguished committee members, once again I am pleased to be with you. Before I introduce Lieutenant-Colonel McClellan, I would like to follow up on a theme that was raised in Tuesday's session.

Several of you referred to the recently released Auditor General's report on modernizing the Canadian Forces and what the implications of this report might be on resource allocation for other areas, such as quality of life. Now that I have had a chance to read the report, I would like to make one simple point.

[English]

A well-functioning armed forces in any country requires the proper training, equipment, leadership, and conditions of service or, in other words, quality of life. These four elements are a package. Each has a different requirement at different points in time, and to the greatest extent possible we balance these. However, no one element can ever be removed from the package without jeopardizing the operational capability of the armed forces. Each element must meet a minimum standard.

• 0905

The former Minister of National Defence had concerns about the standard of leadership, so we had a report to the Prime Minister on leadership and management of the Canadian Forces. The Auditor General was concerned about the standard of our equipment, and now we have his report. The government is concerned about the condition of service, and that is why we are here today talking about quality of life for the people of the Canadian Forces.

[Translation]

At the end of the day, we'll have requirements in each area— training, equipment, leadership and conditions of service—and each will be competing for scarce resources. But as I mentioned on Tuesday, trade-offs are not an option. A well-functioning armed forces requires a balanced package. To have one element below the required standard so that we can afford the standard for another is not an answer. Happy people with lousy tanks do not make an effective armed force.

[English]

Unhappy people with good tanks, I must add, is not a good combination either.

Now it is my pleasure to introduce Lieutenant-Colonel Rick McClellan, special project officer for the Chief of Staff, Assistant Deputy Minister, Personnel, who will speak about the process that has begun. We received what we asked for from this study: feedback from our people. We may not like what we have, but now it is time to act and to restore confidence and pride in the Canadian military at every level.

Colonel McClellan's report will serve as a launching pad for many changes that need to be made in the way we treat our injured people.

Finally, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, before you ask me, I'll tell you; this report will not get shelved. You have my personal assurance I will take action on it.

[Translation]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, General. Colonel.

[English]

Lieutenant-Colonel R. G. McClellan (Special Project Officer for Chief of Staff, Assistant Deputy Minister (Personnel), Department of National Defence): Mr. Bertrand and members of the SCONDVA committee, good morning. I am really very thankful to be here at this time, finally, in front of you to talk about a very important initiative: the Care of Injured Personnel and Their Families Review.

During the conduct of this review I was the Canadian Forces chief social work officer. Given the importance of the matters at hand, I was moved from that position to the special projects position to devote a full-time effort at taking it to its second stage. I appreciate and thank you for the opportunity you've provided me to talk about this review.

On behalf of the members and their families and survivors with whom we talked during the process of this review, I also want to thank you. I am quite happy to discover that some of them have been able to present their cases before you in such places as Edmonton and Trenton and, soon, Halifax and Borden, and we've been happy to encourage them in that process. Providing such a listening and attentive forum for our members to express their concerns is the medicine they require and it is appreciated a great deal. Certainly during this review, that was the type of atmosphere we attempted to create.

The historical background to the review, including reasons, aims, team formulation, and methodologies, is all contained in the report, which has been made available to you. For this reason, I do not plan to dwell on these matters. I do want to stress, however, that from the outset of the review process the review team was keenly aware of a certain sense of mistrust the respondents might have had about the process, and as a result we decided the most effective method of gaining insight would be to listen attentively to what they told us, to make them no promises we couldn't keep, and to simply report back to them.

We had the strong feeling that the most important part of the entire process was the personal touch, visiting respondents where they live, meeting them face to face, sitting in their kitchens or backyards, or, in one case of mine personally, interviewing them in a bowling alley because that's where they were.

I have little time and much to say, and what I want to spend time on here are the nuts and bolts of the entire process, what we discovered throughout and what we were told by members, their families, and survivors. I will begin by telling you that when it came to write the report itself, when all was said and done and all the data were back in our offices here in Ottawa, the review team discovered that we had also been affected by the process. We found ourselves somewhat angry, somewhat upset, and a great deal surprised by what we were told by the members, their families, and survivors.

• 0910

While we had heard stories of real compassion and caring on the parts of individuals within the Canadian Forces, we had in the main heard stories of negativity and pain. Admittedly, this was a process that examined the issues strictly from the perspective of the members and their families or survivors. Nevertheless, all factors of the review process considered, what seemed to emerge were generalized feelings of disillusionment and despair or, in many cases, outright anger and mistrust, which by extension was directed at the review team members.

The most commonly expressed feeling was that of abandonment, the feeling of having been forgotten or being labelled as damaged goods after they were injured, of really not being cared for by a system that promised them nothing but fair treatment and a caring approach or response to their needs post-injury. In fact, we were struck by the dichotomy of an expressed desire on the part of the Canadian Forces to be caring and helpful with members and their families after their injuries and the commonly held view on the part of the member and their family that the goods were not being delivered.

We had also heard many stories in our review about real need now. What we heard from these people was, “I can't wait until your review is finished here; I need help right now.”

So what we did as a team is develop in those cases an advocacy file for each one of those cases who presented themselves to us in that way. We began work on addressing their needs immediately and many times were able to resolve what was their concern in the short term.

Up to the time of writing, and even to the present day, I and the rest of the team members—the team is now disbanded—received calls from members wishing to participate, to tell their story. This gives rise to the suggestion that the cases we saw and heard formed the tip of an iceberg. They were not isolated cases, it would seem, but were reflective of a larger systemic problem that needed to be addressed.

We then began to search for potential reasons why such a situation could have developed. After all, where was all this anger and negativity and frustration coming from? Where was it coming from?

A careful reading between the lines of the stories led us to think that there didn't seem to be many places within the Canadian Forces or organizations such as Veterans Affairs Canada where members and their families really felt listened to or for that matter believed. They were confronted by a series of rules and regulations and policies, which may have been relevant to their cases but which they knew little about and found confusing at best.

[Translation]

In turn, when they do approach the system for assistance, they are met with an equally confusing array of people at various levels who "never seem to have the time to look after me and my concerns".

[English]

We have many good and appropriate policies within the Canadian Forces and some that need to be changed. In the end, though, it is not necessarily the rules and the regulations and policies in and of themselves that produce this kind of situation; it is rather the basic attitudes of those who must interpret and work within them.

The review team heard and saw evidence of condescending and disparaging attitudes and rigid approaches, which appeared to add up to create the sense of distrust and hopelessness expressed in many of the stories. Those attitudes led and fed an adversarial siege-type mentality between the injured member, his or her family or survivors, and the Canadian Forces and Veterans Affairs Canada. What was clear, though, was that the member felt he or she must be prepared to fight every step of the way to get heard, to get believed, to get a pension.

In the context of this discussion, we outlined a number of prevalent attitudes that increase frustration and, in our opinion, diminish hope.

From a systemic point of view we noticed two major attitudes. The first one was that they must come to us first. In other words, we in the headquarters or the unit headquarters or whatever, will wait for the member, his family, or survivors to come to us, and if they don't come, then we don't have a problem, do we?

• 0915

In this respect we must be more proactive. We must leave the comfort of our offices and go immediately to where the injured person is to begin the process of caring for them.

Then, after that, we seem to say no first. Instead of looking for ways to answer positively a petitioner's request for assistance, we first of all give the reasons why they can't get what they're asking for. We tend to say no first.

From an individual point of view, we've also noted two major attitudes. The first one is that I understand your problem, but it's not my job, so go away. Instead of saying, well, that's not my job, but if you leave that request with me, I will find you an answer and get back to you, we tend to say no first.

The almost palpable sentiment that members will always try to get more than they deserve breeds the next point, the attitude that you must be trying to cheat. Whatever you come to me with, you're asking for the world, and therefore I'm going to cut you down before we get to first base.

For any positive changes to occur, we think these types of attitudinal paradigms and approaches need to change in order to end up with a system that delivers what it wants to deliver. While regulations and policies in and of themselves are helpful, we become too rule-bound or root-bound and we can't think of unique ways to care for people in the short term.

In this whole process of caring for injured personnel and their families, an additional problem we discovered was the identification process itself. It quickly became apparent as we began that in terms of casualty or injury identification, there was no one organization within the Canadian Forces that owned the data, much less collated them.

Timely recording and reporting at the unit level was not being done correctly. In some cases, people who had their legs shot off ended up on a list of those with minor injuries. Passing the data to headquarters appeared to be no guarantee that they could be readily accessible.

This circumstance led to other tense cases, such as the spouse who saw her husband being carried across her TV screen after he'd been shot. She called his unit only to be told that he was not injured and that she must be wrong. Her particular story got worse as she scraped up the information chain to get an answer. Once she got the answer, her battle had only begun, as she then began fighting for assistance in getting to see her husband: rules and regulations and orders.

Suffice it to say, it was extremely difficult to establish the number of serious injuries, very serious injuries, and minor injuries that had occurred since January 1, 1992, and no internal organization could accurately validate their data.

What we heard most often was, “Well, we think this is correct, but there's no way of establishing that for certain”. Casualty reporting, notification, and data collection need to be improved. This is the subject of one of our first recommendations. It is clear that casualty reporting and data management have suffered within the CF and that matching databanks with external agencies, such as VAC, is often very impossible.

Since this issue has so many implications for a broad range of organizations, it is likely that additional financial resources will have to be brought to bear in setting up an appropriate system in the future. This matter will be developed during phase II. Discussions have already occurred on the kind of organization required to ensure improvement therein.

The third major problem we discovered and that I'd like to mention at this time is the fact that in many of the cases, the member and their family essentially became lost in the shuffle given the number of levels of the organization they had to traverse to obtain an answer or even a hearing. On other occasions they just gave up or fell through the cracks while passing from one organization to another—for example, between being a member of the military and all that implies from a service provision point of view and being civilian, coming under the purview of an organization like Veterans Affairs Canada.

The passage of information from one organization to the other was not seen as efficient. Veterans Affairs Canada was forced on many occasions to wait for medical information from the Canadian Forces prior to being able to action a petition for pension. In one case, medical information was not received even after 236 days. This of course means that the petitioner faces a significant wait.

• 0920

There was ample evidence as well that our two organizations do not communicate well together and had no mechanisms in place that were designed to prevent the loss of members moving from one to the other.

Significant improvements have been made in the very recent past, and Veterans Affairs Canada has been able to reduce their pension response time by 50% and their increased percentage of positive responses in the first instance by 50% as well.

Finally, a fourth major issue, and one that came up often during the review, was that on completion of the form, Canadian Forces form CF-98— You may have heard of that in your travels. This is a report of injuries that must be completed on all occasions when members present themselves to the medical authorities for any kind of injury. This report essentially notes the time and date of an injury and whether or not the member was on duty at the time. It has a significant impact on the life of a member when, perhaps years later, he or she wishes to apply for a pension benefit relative to a particular injury. Veterans Affairs Canada requires this report to be completed to establish time and on-duty status.

Our team noted that on too many occasions the report was not filled out and that when the member presented a pension application to Veterans Affairs, it became extremely difficult to get a judgment because of this. Naturally, this caused a great deal of stress in the lives of members and their families who were affected. The review team made recommendations concerning possible and different ways of establishing time and on-duty status for pension adjudication and will be looking at that matter during phase II of the review. For its part, Veterans Affairs Canada is anxious to entertain this initiative.

Members of the committee, this preliminary report has pointed to a number of deficiencies in the manner in which the Canadian Forces provides for its troops and their families who have been injured in the course of their duties, as well as the part played in those deficiencies by organizations such as Veterans Affairs Canada. While it is essentially a bad news story, the very fact that this review is taking place provides ample reason to be hopeful for the future.

Certainly there are attitudes that need to change and, conversely, every reason to believe they will, given the support this initiative is having at the very highest levels. Essentially, we asked the question and received an answer. From my point of view, it is eminently clear to me that the commitment to improve is shared by the Chief of the Defence Staff and senior leaders within our department, and indeed within VAC.

Do you know the single most important thing that needs to happen at this point? The single most important thing is that members, former members, their families, and their survivors need to see that what they told us during this process actually made it somewhere and was listened to.

I'm excited at the fact that this report was released publicly a very short time ago, because they will have seen that. They will see that their story and their recommendation have made it to the top. That is a significant first step in the reduction of the “I'm from Missouri” stance that we get from people out there, the mistrust and the anger, to see that what they really think and say has made it to the top.

We've made a number of improvements since the report was finished. I'd like to tell you about some of them right now. The DND-VAC improvement team process is a case in point. The recommendation to expand this review is another. It is now time for more action to move the review to a second phase, a process of validation and consultation, out of which will come reactions and other recommendations designed to make overall improvements and lead, essentially, to a third stage sort of action plan or implementation plan.

It is our opinion that structures will change and old paradigms will shift. It is anticipated that the second phase of the review will be completed by August 1998 and an implementation plan developed by November. Part of what needs to happen in this second phase process is that organizations, internal and external, have to be prepared to perhaps give up some of what they consider protected turf and to entertain new ideas of working together to really care for personnel and their families.

I will take this opportunity to point out to you some other recommendations that I consider essential to the future success of the initiative. I refer you to recommendations 3 through 5. They essentially talk about a very up-close and personal working relationship with Veterans Affairs Canada, with data management issues as examples.

• 0925

The organizational and political will is present to drop old barriers and to engage in new working relationships. It will also require additional funding, especially vis-à-vis the establishment of a new and/or beefed up cell in the data-gathering, ownership, and management issue.

By way of wrapping up, I am very heartened to see the support the initiative is receiving at the various highest levels within the CF and within Veterans Affairs Canada. This is a watershed document and we can do good work with this, and we are about to do that in the very near future.

[Translation]

I wish to thank Mr. Bertrand and the committee members for giving me an opportunity to appear here today. I'm now ready to answer your questions.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

We now go to question period.

Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, General and Colonel.

I'd like to start with some questions for you, Colonel. Is it true the rumour I've heard that the military, on a regular basis, tap telephone lines and read people's mail?

What you have here is what I've heard and what I've read, and I want to thank you for that. What we've heard as a committee as we've been travelling across the country and what you've presented here in fact match up very well. We've heard from a lot of people, and clearly you've heard from the same people, because this is an excellent report, and I want to congratulate you on that. Of course the sincere congratulations will come if it's acted on, if you really follow through on this.

I read on page 2, “After all, where was all this negativity, anger and frustration coming from?” These feelings of anger are certainly feelings we've heard about—from the heart, from so many people, from injured people themselves, and from their families. The frustration with the system is exactly as you have it presented here. They say, “We got injured serving our country, either in Canada or abroad, and the attitude is that we, the injured, have to go and fight for everything.” They say, “We assumed that if we were injured, we'd be taken care of. That's what we assumed; that's what we expect from the military and the country.” Then they found that in fact they have to struggle for everything.

The first answer is automatically no. How many times have we heard that as we've travelled across this country? I think the members opposite would agree it was very often.

Then, if they're badly injured, they'll fight—most times over a period of years, as their health deteriorates—in the department or through the Canadian Forces. If the injury's bad enough that they're forced out of the forces, then they start the fight all over again, as though there is absolutely no communication whatsoever with Veterans Affairs.

We've heard this before the committee, and certainly I've heard it directly myself many, many times. They have feelings of anger, but I think everyone on this committee has also felt the anger that the men and women who serve us are treated so shabbily.

We hear from the people. We're most likely to hear from the people who have gone through the worst treatment. I would assume that we would hear from those people. But it is encouraging that you have recognized this so well in your report, and I give you credit for that.

LCol R.G. McLellan: I'd like to begin with a short answer by saying no, I do not tap telephones or, to my knowledge, any other method of communication.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Well, you've gotten the message, anyway. I really do congratulate you for this, and I do hope it's followed through on. And I hope it's not just from now on that it's dealt with. I hope the people who have come before the committee and others who have come to me and, I'm sure, other MPs will be treated differently from now on.

• 0930

I just wanted to ask you this. You do mention this connection between the Canadian Forces and Veterans Affairs. You recognize the problem here. Will something happen soon to deal with that problem? Again, you can just imagine these families that go through what's sometimes a several-year process, as their health deteriorates, through the Canadian Forces. Then they start with Veterans Affairs.

We heard one lady at, I believe, Petawawa—I might be wrong—who talked about that. She said she was even required to get brand-new reports from a doctor. This isn't easy to do when you live on a base, you know. It's a lot of driving and a lot of time. They go through the whole thing in the forces and then for Veterans Affairs. They have to go to all that cost—a lot of it isn't compensated—and all the pain of getting new reports from a doctor that only say the same thing the first doctor said. Some of these people have seen five or six doctors who sometimes haven't really said anything much different. They see two or three during the first process of going through the forces and then see two or three through Veterans Affairs to try to get a pension.

Is something is going to happen with that?

LCol R.G. McLellan: Indeed, it has already started to happen. As a matter of fact, part of the review team that we struck last year had two Veterans Affairs members. So we had VAC members on the review team.

VAC is committed in the same way we are to improving our communication. I was recently down in Charlottetown talking about the second phase of this report, and they're most anxious to get involved.

We have also exchanged staff officers to improve communication. General Boutet, who is here in the audience, is now with VAC. Also, VAC has sent a high-level person to DND. We're getting more up close and personal so that we don't have those kinds of situations.

Mr. Leon Benoit: There's an individual of whom you're probably aware. This was in the Sun on April 1, I believe. Master Corporal Garry Dolhan was injured in a parachute jump. This was reported again in the paper. He landed on some trees. I've heard from from more than one person that this is considered a very dangerous jump zone, possibly more dangerous than is needed for a lot of the practising that goes on. He was severely injured.

While in the hospital, people from the forces came in and really interrogated him. Here he is, lying on his back with severe injuries. They asked about what he did wrong during the jump. He's not really, I don't think, in a state the next day to be able to learn much from what he did wrong when he's in severe pain and not knowing whether he'll ever be able to walk again, let alone carry on his service.

Are you aware of this incident?

LCol R.G. McLellan: I'm not, sir. But I would suspect that what was happening at that point was what's called a summary investigation. When an accident happens, a summary investigation is begun.

I'm not so sure how they approached him. It sounds as if it was inquisitory and accusatory. That's quite unfortunate. The conduction of a summary investigation should be done in an unbiased manner, but it should be done very quickly after the accident because the information is still recent in your head. I'm not aware of that case, though.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mrs. Dolhan called. Her comment was that she was afraid her husband would be abandoned by the military. It was something right along that line. That's quite a shocking statement when she really doesn't know whether her husband will be able to walk or certainly serve again. Their whole future is just thrown into disarray. That's her first thought.

This is why I'm so pleased that you recognized that in your report.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: Perhaps I may make a comment about this very specific case of one of our NCMs who was injured on a jump while jumping with the Americans. He was badly injured. I guess when you're so keen to take care of them, you do the investigation too quickly at that time and very insensitively.

What really bothered me in that specific case—I got personally involved with the commander of the army on this one—was the fact that the accident had happened and within a few days, right away, his spouse felt this lack of confidence in our system such that she had to go public, feeling that she had to protect her husband because he had been injured. That one really hurt the hell out of me.

• 0935

This is one of the examples we are taking. When an accident happens, we've got to cover all the angles. We have only one chance of maintaining and furthering the confidence of the men and women who are serving, and if we miss it, we miss it for a long, long time.

We hear the stories Colonel McLellan has heard. We will never be able to repair the damage that was done, but in that case I think I can assure you that we have the bull by the horns.

Mr. Leon Benoit: That's my point exactly. We can't go back, but there are several people who are suffering from past injuries who I don't believe are being treated properly. Here is a chance to make sure this gentleman and his family are treated properly.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: He's quite all right, by the way. He's coming along well.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Proud.

Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, gentlemen.

I certainly thank you, Colonel McLellan, for your presentation here this morning. Like my colleague, Mr. Benoit, I feel more assured that things are coming together. It's been a long way for a lot of people to have gone. We've heard the terrible problems as this committee has crossed the country. I've been a member of this committee for several years and I've have heard many stories that I hope I don't have to hear again.

As the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, I know the criticisms that have been made both of the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of National Defence. But I do know that a lot of progress has been made in this area. Unfortunately, it took a while, and I think the attitudes of a lot of people had to be changed.

I want to thank you people for this review that went on, and I also want to congratulate both departments for the way this is taking place.

With all the stories we hear across the country—and there are very many that, as I say, I hope we don't have to hear again. It's sad that we had to let this become such a terrible problem. I hope we're coming to the end of this and that we will have in place a system that will make sure these men and women, as they move from the military to the civilian sector and have injuries to be taken care of, are looked after.

That's all I want to say.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Proud.

Mrs. Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Thank you.

I'm delighted to be reading through this report, and I echo what Mr. Benoit said. This certainly substantiates everything we have heard.

There are a couple of things about which I'm a little curious. In reading the findings and surveying the data, I see there were 941 questionnaires sent out and 214 were returned on time. To get to the bottom, only 42% were returned. Are you doing anything to try to follow up on the others? Do we know why the rate of return was so low?

LCol R.G. McLellan: We attempted to look at that when they were starting to come back. People move, people leave the country, people don't accept their mail—that kind of thing. It was very difficult from the address lists we had to actually find out whether Mr. or Mrs. Smith were living in apartment B on Fifth Street in Vancouver. We didn't keep going back to try to find out. As the review process went on, it became impossible from a time perspective to actually check up on all those.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: So while you sent out 941, you don't know exactly how many reached the mark. Of those who actually received it, the return may be much greater than is shown here.

LCol R.G. McLellan: The return that did happen, irrespective of the places where somehow they were disconnected, was statistically significant enough to base our findings on.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Certainly, as I say, it gives the flavour.

• 0940

I have another couple of quick things. Again, I haven't read the entire report so it may be included in here, but there were a number of people who felt there was a significant conflict of interest between military doctors and their obligation to report and comment on the status of injured armed forces personnel, particularly the employable/deployable. We understand that a number of injured members were hiding their injuries because they thought if they went to the doctor, he had to report and they'd then be subject to release. Did you hear that, and do you have any comments about it?

LCol R.G. McLellan: Indeed, we heard on a number of occasions that the issue of self-revealing injuries, whether they're physical or psychological, was something that prevented a lot of people— Their perception was that if they revealed their injuries, psychological or otherwise, their career was ended. That's not quite true, in the main. Nonetheless, it keeps them from self-revealing—

Mrs. Judi Longfield: If that's in fact the perception the injured employee has, then certainly we have to address that in some way, don't we?

LCol R.G. McLellan: Yes. As far as telling the individual to trust us, come forward and tell us where they're hurt, where the booboo is, and we'll help them with that, they still don't believe that story. A lot of it has to do with what the members feel will happen to their careers in terms of being released or boarded medically, or something like that.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: If I may pick up there, I guess we're facing human behaviour mixed with the lack of trust in our doctors. I'm pretty sure there's quite a few hockey players who are playing injured and don't go and check with their team doctor because their career is on the line if they're injured again. We've all done it in our younger days, when we didn't see the danger of doing that. But hiding an injury so you can go and exercise and be with the team is done on a daily basis, probably, unfortunately. It's up to the leadership and the medical service. We have to make sure we don't injure our player, our member, just as on a hockey team, a group of professionals.

As to whether when you go and see the military doctor he'll be harsher than the civilian doctor, certainly from the start, if you go into the hands of a military doctor who knows the rules and knows what the policies are and will apply them, starting clinically pure and then putting some humanity into it, compared with a doctor downtown who doesn't know what the rules and regulations are, the recommendation of both is not going to be the same. It's then up to the chain of command and the leadership to decide what is going to happen and apply universality of service. It's a very difficult human decision to be taken all the time.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I appreciate and understand what you're saying, but again, I come back to—spouses continually telling us that they feared for their husband's career, that they did not trust that military doctor. While they may have trusted the treatment they were getting, they didn't trust his— loyalty is perhaps not the right word, but the doctor's master was the armed forces first, the patient second.

I think when you're injured and you have difficulties, particularly— If you use the analogy between the injured hockey player and the injured armed forces personnel, the injured hockey player has the ability to seek assistance outside the NHL, or whatever. He can go to an independent. The armed forces personnel does not have that same ability to go and get a second or third opinion, or someone who's just slightly apart from the situation.

I appreciate your feelings on it, but you also have to know how deep that fear is in terms of armed forces personnel.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: I might add that the fear is generated by a lack of very detailed information that should have been provided at that time on the system that prevails. Anybody who is being told in the doctor's office that such and such a thing is going to happen to him is not yet true. There is quite an elaborate review process going on.

• 0945

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Okay.

There are concerns that disability under SISIP is significantly harsher than disability under other public service pension or insurance plans. The other concern was that if you're injured during peacekeeping operations, peace support, special duty, as it's defined, that pension starts as of date of application. If you are injured or hurt in operations on base or in training, there's a real disparity in that you don't qualify until release. Is there something we're doing to address that? Do you see that as a significant problem?

Gen J.M.G. Baril: I agree. What you've stated is absolutely right. I did discuss it and I brought it up here last Tuesday. There is a difference. But for the men and women who are serving in uniform, there's not much difference between being injured in Bosnia or during a flood in Winnipeg. It's the same thing. It's being addressed between the two departments. It's a little complex, and I would recommend that you raise it when our veterans and also the Department of Veterans Affairs appear in front of your committee. They are the experts on it.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: It's under the purview of Veterans Affairs, not National Defence, did you say?

Gen J.M.G. Baril: It's more complicated than that. I'm not a lawyer and they have lawyers.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: All right. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Price.

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen, for being here today.

I was going to follow up a little on Mrs. Longfield's question because you did state that:

A well-functioning armed forces in any country requires the proper training, equipment, leadership, and conditions of service, or, in other words, quality of life.

What we're hearing is that there seems to be almost a fear in the armed forces. They're very willing to go and fight and do whatever they must outside the country, but there's almost a fear of doing anything dangerous within the country. If they do get injured within the country, they don't have the back-up they have out of the country. I guess it follows the same line of what Mrs. Longfield was asking. It's very bothersome. How can you have troops out there who are willing to really train hard when they have this fear in the back of their minds that if they get injured in training, they don't get the same support as if they're in the theatre?

Gen J.M.G. Baril: I guess we don't have troops who train in Canada or serve overseas who have any fear. They're very brave troops. But what we have is people who don't have the confidence they should have in the system that can take care of them if they get injured.

Probably most of us, when we go into operations, don't think too much about being injured. We believe the system is going to take care of us and we don't think about it. The family shouldn't be in the same position. But we have had so many difficult cases that even if I gave you 1,000 good cases, it would not cover the bad cases we've had. One is too many. I cannot have the men and women who are risking their lives in our country or outside thinking their families will not be taken care of in addition to themselves if they are either killed or badly injured, or temporarily injured.

Mr. David Price: It must affect the training here when they have that fear behind them all the time, about what will happen if they get injured during training. We are turning out excellent troops, there's no question there, but—

Gen J.M.G. Baril: I was young, too. When I was 18 or 19, I never thought I would get injured so I never had any fear of anything. Probably that's why there was not enough pressure coming from the ranks. It has taken six or seven years of very intense operations where we took a lot of casualties, different casualties, physically and others, in a very short period to drive it home that we were doing something wrong. We had been in Cyprus for 29 years. Over 30,000 of us served there, and it did not drive it home at that time, or we were not listening.

I guess through my career I received a lot of nos, that I could not do anything about. It was above me. But right now, the no goes in the bucket and the bucket stops right in front of me.

Mr. David Price: Exactly.

• 0950

It seems of course that the problems we're all living through today come right down to money. I guess the Auditor General does agree with this, in the report you've just seen. You in fact just said today that happy people with lousy tanks don't make an effective armed force.

You also said the Auditor General's report wasn't going to be shelved. You gave your personal assurance that you will take action. What action can you take? What do you see? Do you see a timeframe you can work in?

Gen J.M.G. Baril: The Auditor General's report is certainly the responsibility of the whole department to answer, and I'm sure we have some experts working on it right now.

But if I may say so, it's not that bad concerning us. It certainly drives home that living with the resources restriction that has been imposed on the department for a great many years has been very difficult. It has generated massive cuts, massive change, and massive re-engineering. When we go through massive change, something has to give, and unfortunately, I am afraid our people suffered.

Whatever we do, we can't have the men and women of the forces carry it on their shoulders, suffering because we don't have the resources. It has to be readjusted, it has to be better managed, and we have to stretch all the dollars, but we cannot jeopardize or compromise the quality of the lives of the people, and that goes from equipment to medical to housing. All of the house has to be taken care of.

Mr. David Price: I agree with you totally. I like what you did say, that trade-offs are not an option. That is very important. But how are you going to be able to handle that? With pressure on us, maybe, to get more money?

Gen J.M.G. Baril: I was going to say first with difficulty, but I feel I have a lot of support, not only in this room here, but in our department, in the government, and in our country. This is where I have a lot of confidence. Our country's going to take care of those who are charged with their defence.

Mr. David Price: Colonel McLellan, you mentioned in your presentation that your review committee is now disbanded. The problems have been put out there and there are solutions on the table, but right now it's as though that report is on the shelf again. You say a continuation of this review will go on, but will it be a new review board that's formed? Will it be the same people to act as a continuation or will it be a whole new group starting up?

LCol R.G. McLellan: Well, let me tell you first off that the report is definitely not on any shelf, and it will not get on any shelf. The review team is of course disbanded. I called them together just to go out and do the talking to people to find the answers to the questions. It's now my responsibility and the responsibility of a small number of folks who work around me to engineer the phase II and the phase III operation. It's certainly not on the shelf.

Mr. David Price: Well, I would definitely hope not.

LCol R.G. McLellan: The good thing about this is—

Mr. David Price: Will there be an actual continuation of that same group? They've already been exposed to it, and hopefully—

LCol R.G. McLellan: No, not of the same group, for various reasons, but there will be a continuation. You know, members and their families and their survivors are tenacious people, and they know this is public now, so they can legitimately say to us, “You promised to do this” and call us to task. That's great. That engenders action and a sort of excitement in the process.

Mr. David Price: Thank you.

I have just one last question, General. Maybe you could explain a little about what you plan on doing about the service medals, particularly the unit medals. I know it was touched on briefly, but—

Gen J.M.G. Baril: You're talking of the Medak pocket, or—

Mr. David Price: Yes, but actually I guess I should probably go a little further. Since our roles have changed so much in the military in the last while and we've gotten into situations such as Manitoba and the ice storms and that, will there be maybe some type of recognition for those particular duties?

Gen J.M.G. Baril: It was certainly considered by the government and by us. We have a very complex and elaborate system of awards, decoration, and recognition, in the department and also in our country. Government House is the holder of all those recognitions that are being given.

• 0955

Going specifically to those actions that are being taken, we do have the capability to reward unit and individual for what they have done, wherever it is, in Canada or outside.

What we had in Bakovici is an operation different from everything we've been doing since the Korean War. We were involved in a lot of peacekeeping, but all of a sudden we had a unit composed of regular and reservists from all across Canada who stood their ground, who had to fight to stand their ground. They have established a new operation where the men and women of Canada get involved in this operation, other than in war.

I'd like to put a marker on this and say, okay, this is the kind of standard we're asked to do. For anybody who does it again, or who has done it, we're going to recognize them in this way.

I'm looking at what we have now to see if we can do it. I think I'll have to invent something new—not me; the system will have to invent something different, because the action was very different on this one.

Mr. David Price: Yes, on this one and also in the ice storm and in Manitoba. Our military is involved in different actions now, and they are very heroic and should be recognized. Certainly there should be unit recognition. I know individuals are recognized, and that is well taken care of, but it's the units themselves. People tend to attach themselves very much to their units and they're very proud of their units. If they get unit recognition, that sometimes solves a lot of problems, especially in terms of morale.

Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Lebel.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Good morning, General. I apologize for not being here at the beginning because I was sitting on another committee but I'm pleased to have you here today. I don't have a great many questions. I asked mine the other day. But there's one thing that strikes me as quite symptomatic.

During our tour of the bases, an officer and a few NCOs came to tell us that they could no longer afford to pay their obligatory contributions to the officers' mess. The first question I'd like to ask you is why is there a mess? Why has it been the custom in the army up until now to have an officers' mess or a NCOs' mess? Why was it so important? Didn't it convey an image of solidarity, of sticking together, a feeling of belonging? Wasn't the image of the mess something important for the rank and file? That's my first question. I'll let you answer it and then ask my second one.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: This subject has been raised all over Canada. I also made a tour throughout the country. A certain number of our troops at all levels think that a mess is no longer necessary. This group may also think that other services we provide are not necessary but in the Canadian Forces we did consult our non-commissioned officers and our officers at all levels and committees met for a long time and we came to the conclusion that for the welfare of the troops and the Canadian Forces as well as for solidarity and esprit de corps the mess was still necessary here in Canada.

Some other armies do not think it is necessary. If it is considered to be necessary, then one must be able to support them. A part of the cost of the mess is paid for by public money and the rest by money that is not public.

On a base, if the members of a mess wish to have fewer activities, they may democratically vote, since they are democratic organizations, to reduce the cost of membership but there still is an obligatory fee, a very minimal one. I'm sure that several members of the officers' and NCOs' mess in Ottawa who religiously pay their $10 or $12 a month do not even know where their mess is because they don't make use of it.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: That may be the answer to my second question. Do you not think there's a certain disaffection among the military, whether NCOs or officers, in relation to their unit or group? Would you not say this is a sign that there is something sapping the morale of our troops?

Gen. J.M.G. Baril: No. I see it as a sign that our little military society or military life has changed a great deal.

• 1000

When I entered, we were 45 single men in Valcartier, as I remember. There was a grand total of three cars, two of which were shared by three owners because people couldn't afford to buy a car just for themselves. You can be sure that the mess was a lot more active than it is nowadays. All our soldiers lived on the base.

Now the structure has changed. Since officers no longer live on the base, the officers' mess is closed most evenings. On most of the bases now, there are common kitchens. People of all ranks eat in the same kitchen. There isn't enough interest in opening the different messes.

Things have changed. For the time being, that's how it is. Everyone has a car. People are far more free. People want their freedom. But we still think that it is a basic requirement to have our mess, with reduced hours of course, and thus lower costs. It's a sign of the change that has taken place in Canadian society. It doesn't indicate a malaise. It may just show that people want to spend less time together. It is a clear indication that there has been a change in our society.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: I agree with you but I find it rather strange. An army always implies some type of grouping, either a base, a platoon, a company or a regiment. I see an army as a grouping of individuals who maintain very close links. A platoon is almost a fraternity. When people no longer feel like having a place to socialize— I respect your opinion, General, but looking at it from the point of view of a civilian, I wonder whether this is not some sign of a disaffection on the part of the military outside normal working hours, a decrease in the feeling of belonging and perhaps a simple lack of interest in a military career. In any case, that's how I see it. I may be completely mistaken.

Gen. J.M.G. Baril: No, I don't think so. What you are saying really is that things are far more complicated than we think. When I arrived in my regiment, the way of dealing with stress was having a good time together. Our veterans would all get together around the table, tables where eight people could sit. The therapy sessions maybe took place in the mess and in the communities. We looked after ourselves.

Now, with the changes in society and the greater degree of independence, we have to make compensations. We now have to resort to outside treatment. We now have to teach things like ethics and matters relating to the Geneva Convention. Before there used to be interaction. A great many things used to be transmitted by osmosis in the mess. We lived together with people in the mess, with our superiors, either single or not. A lot of things were transmitted in this way. Regiments were very close. We all lived together and ate together.

Now all this has splintered because society has changed. Because of these changes in our military society, we have to make compensations in our institutions. We now have to teach a number of things. That is why we think it is still necessary to require our people to participate. If they don't want to take part, then it may be a different matter.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Thank you, General.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lebel.

We'll now start our five-minute round. Mr. Goldring.

[English]

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much, gentlemen.

General, could you perhaps explain in your presentation whether you're speaking figuratively when you talk about “happy people and lousy tanks”? Are you referring to the 1972 Leopard tanks?

That's one question. I have a second question after that.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: No. I was giving a generic example. The Leopard tanks we had were the best in the world when we bought them. They're not now the best in the world. We're upgrading them. We're upgrading them with appliqué armour and also an all-weather firing system that we have; we're improving the turret and the firing system. That will be a tank that can carry us for probably another 12 years, and in that time we'll see what we do with this.

What I was trying to say is you can have the best tank, but you have to have some good people inside; otherwise the match isn't going to be good.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I understand that. I just needed a clarification of the actual tanks.

Secondly, there were reports of an ailment called the Gulf War syndrome, from the Gulf War. There were related effects and suggestions of what factors may be causing it, everything from the anthrax vaccinations themselves—and there is basically a cocktail of different things going into the anthrax vaccination—to radioactive shells and sprays for insects and whatever throughout the war.

• 1005

Is there very careful documentation this time of any effects that may potentially, down the road, cause a repeat of this ailment? In particular, are the vaccinations being given and very carefully recorded, with any effects or reactions to the vaccinations recorded? I'm mentioning this in line with the comments about poor casualty reporting. I specifically would like to know whether there is specific documentation to prevent a reoccurrence of the suggestion of Gulf War syndrome this time, particularly around the vaccinations.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: We've certainly tried not to repeat the hard lesson we learned in the Gulf War of 1990, but you're asking some very complex questions of an infantry officer. I have with me my chief doctor, who served with me in Africa. He was my adviser on the medical side when we were in the decision-making process to send the latest troops to the Gulf.

Mr. Chair, if I may, can I ask him to answer the question?

Colonel Scott Cameron (Director of Medical Services, Department of National Defence): The short answer to your question is yes, for this deployment we are taking very special care in the way we document the immunizations and medications people receive, and the side-effects, and also in the way we are providing them with information on the benefits and risks of all of those medications and what we call medical counter-measures.

The longer answer to your question is that there has been now really a mountain of scientific research and evidence collected since the close of the Gulf War in 1991. We do know that veterans of that conflict suffer from illnesses, and suffer from some illnesses more frequently than their civilian counterparts. However, there has been a very detailed search made to try to find a specific cause or a new illness, and to date that search has turned up nothing. There is no new illness that has been identified that is unique to the Gulf, and there is no specific agent, be it a medication, immunization or chemical, that has been shown to cause any illness in higher frequency in veterans of that conflict than in anybody else.

We are now focusing our attention, I think as we should be, on how we can best and most effectively deal with people suffering from illnesses who have served in not just the Gulf but in other deployments. There is work and research going on in that area.

In medicine, the first step is to accurately define the problem, because until you can do that you can't treat the patient effectively.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Have you any comment on a report that I had heard of the possibility of a man-made microbe occurring in the blood of affected members? Have you heard anything of that report at all?

Col Scott Cameron: I'm not sure exactly what report you're referring to.

I do know that there have been several micro-organisms postulated over the last several years as causes of illnesses in veterans of the Gulf War. Each of those has been investigated by attempting to first identify the organism in the patient or, secondly, by attempting to identify the effects of the organism. So far, in the cases that have been looked into, there's been no association found and no new organism determined. But I'm not aware of the specific report you're talking about.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Everybody's right on time this morning. Thank you very much.

A voice: Don't brag.

The Chairman: I know. I shouldn't rock the boat.

Mr. Richardson.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to take a moment to identify a member in the audience who will be leaving the service soon. It's Colonel John Gardam. I had the opportunity to work with him at the peace memorial.

John, as a longstanding, well-armoured officer and the project person at the peace memorial on Sussex, I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart, from all of us, for your success and hard work with that, particularly your work with the peacekeeping people. Thank you.

Voices: Hear, hear!

• 1010

Mr. John Richardson: I feel sorry for the Chief of the Defence Staff, because he knows how important that one piece of paper is, the one that should be carried by every platoon sergeant or company sergeant major, even on peacekeeping manoeuvres, whether it's at Wainwright or anywhere. When someone jumps off a truck or a tank or anything like that, lots of things happen—broken ankles, spinal problems. Simple things like that can come up.

If it's in the hands of the platoon commander, he quickly writes it out, identifies the date, time, and place, and the biggest part of the investigation is over with. It's the key document.

We were hearing it all the time about the report on injuries. If you say, “We're in a hurry, we have to leave, so we'll pick it up later”, well, later never happens to come around. It's lost, and that person goes to the back of bus.

I don't know how we get it in. It used to be SOP for us to carry, on every manoeuvre or any exercise, your report on injuries sheet and to make sure they were filled out. The summary investigation would flow directly from that, and any witnesses to it would have been on that report on injuries. The investigation could be brought together tightly, in a timely fashion, and if something was due that person, it would be on record. If the aggravated injury flared up later, they could go back to that evidence, and it would help them get a pension.

To Colonel McLellan and your group, I don't know how you can instil that. I know when you get into the heat of a manoeuvre or something you think, well, that's okay, we'll get it later. But it doesn't happen.

They just have to be told to write it out: it won't take 30 seconds to get that information down on paper. Whether it's rumpled or in your back pocket, it's still prima facie evidence of what took place. It's the little things that count. As I say, it helps particularly in injuries.

I would like to say, though, that yesterday the Minister of Veterans Affairs and his staff were quite open and quite supportive of the activities that are taking place between the Department of National Defence and Veterans Affairs. They have closed the time on time of reaction between one and another and getting the people on record for pensions.

We were pleased to hear that. It's nice to see this back to back, from last night to today. It's encouraging for all of us around this table to see that kind of cooperation and to see that those deserving of a pension get it quickly.

The other point that was made—and I would like to thank you for this—was the very openness with which you presented your case today. I think that's a big step forward. The language and the examples used were fair, timely, and reflective of the real types of incidents you uncovered. We on the committee thank you for that as well.

I don't know what else I can say other than if that's an indication of the way we operate with National Defence, it's a good omen for all of us.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you, John.

Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

General, I think the others have asked a lot of the questions I would like to have asked on injuries, although I do have something else I hope to follow up on later.

I want to get to another issue, and that's the issue of females in the military. I'm wondering how that program is going, the program you're using to try to encourage females to get into the military.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: I guess I should start by giving you my opinion—which is probably a little stronger than an opinion with the rank I have on my shoulder—concerning the integration of women in the forces. I have been going public on this.

It's the law of the land, and it's going to happen. It's going to happen for the women who want to join the forces in Canada, both regular and reserve, and it is happening more than it has before.

A lot of mistakes have been made. There were a lot of bad attitudes. There was a lot of resistance, even after the law was passed.

In many places in our forces—and I humbly admit that probably the worst was in the combat arms of the army; probably the infantry was the worst—we were told to accept them in the infantry, but we made sure they were not welcome. The lives of those who were attempting to come in were made so miserable they walked away.

• 1015

My view now is that we're going to make the combat arms and every other trade we have in the forces welcome in that place. We have to instil confidence that they will be welcomed when they come in. It's very difficult to order a change of attitude, but it's rather more easy to not tolerate those who don't want to change their attitude.

Mr. Leon Benoit: How have the numbers of females in the military been changing over the past five or ten years?

Gen J.M.G. Baril: We certainly can give you statistics that are not very élogieuses as to the integration of women, especially in the hard trades or in the combat arms, but we're having a very serious drive now and investing a lot of effort in recruiting them. I'm not talking of having a quota go into the forces, but we're making a real effort to make it understood that the population of Canada can serve. If you make the standard, you can go anywhere you want in this country. Your background, sex, language, or anything really doesn't matter.

The forces have changed. I joined a long time ago, and those who were not speaking good English at that time had some difficulty. When women started to come in, they had a lot of difficulties. There's always some protected turf, and in the army it was the combat arms. And let me tell you, it was protected at the expense of very good women we had serving.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I think I might have missed the answer. I was asking how the numbers had changed over the last five years, say.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: Globally in the forces we're still at around 10.5%. In our military college, the proportion is much higher, over 30% actually. As for combat arms in NCM, we have very few in the regular and quite a large proportion in the reserve, because it's more attractive.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'm talking about regular forces here. I'd like you to just stick to that, if you could.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: Yes. I could have very precise statistics for you if you want, sir.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay. I'm sure I can get those.

So you say you're determined to make this new program work, increasing the number of females in the regular forces.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: There's one thing I will not do, and that's lower the standard we have for the forces. That is not what I'm being asked to do.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Lower it from where? This committee has heard very clearly—very clearly—and it's been expressed I'd say even more clearly at the meetings between, that in fact standards have been lowered substantially already to accommodate women.

There were concerns about having different standards, and that's a legitimate concern. So for a while the military did have different standards. Then they realized it was pretty clear they had to even the standards out, so they lowered the standard so that women could in fact meet the requirements. This is something we have heard clearly. Would you deny that has happened?

Gen J.M.G. Baril: Yes, I will. What happened was not lowering the standard. What happened was establishing a standard. In many instances, there was no standard in the infantry. There was no standard in the artillery or the armoured corps. That was the case because it was taken for granted that anybody who was in the artillery could lower the big shell into the breach of the gun.

We said women couldn't come in because they're not strong enough. But we found out there were quite a few men who couldn't load the whole shell. So we were asked by the law of the land to establish a standard. How can we say women cannot come in because they cannot run 20 miles with 100 pounds? Somebody said, “Why do you run 20 miles with 100 pounds?” We have to justify the standard we have.

Some of the standards that were established and imposed were specifically to ensure that women would not come in. It was dishonest at that time. It was not the standard that was required for infantry, armoured, or artillery. And if you say that somebody thinks it's not the standard, let me tell you I took some of those characters to task because they were imposing personal standards. That's not the way we operate in the forces.

Mr. Leon Benoit: But it is I'd say a widespread feeling, especially in the army, that the standards have been lowered—for example, the marches.

But that isn't actually where I'm going with this. Where I'm going with this is I'm wondering why on earth females would want to get into the forces with the way they're dealt with in terms of postings, especially postings that split the family. That's where I'm going with this. You can encourage all you want, but I would suggest that women who want to have children and who want to have some kind of family life—and this applies too, by the way, to family men who really want to be with their children for a reasonable amount of time. They're all willing to accept overseas postings and certain postings that they understand are absolute requirements, but what they really are upset with is the frequent postings. They get back, for example, from a tour in Bosnia, and soon after they're sent off for training here, training there, a posting here. Then things come up like the ice storm and the floods. They're quite willing to go on those things. They want to. They also want to go on the training sessions. But they really feel that in many cases the families are split apart in a completely unreasonable way.

• 1020

The military has to decide whether it wants to have families in the military or not. Right now, it is a disaster, quite frankly.

So that's where I'm going with this. How do you think you are going to increase the number of females if the families are treated like this and continue to be treated like this?

Gen J.M.G. Baril: I would not qualify that the treatment of our families is a disaster all across the nation. There are certainly a lot of examples where it is not right.

When you join the forces and you have a family with both people in uniform, we and the career managers try as much as we can to post both people at places for the good of the forces, because it's a hell of a lot better for us if the family is not split.

Eventually it will happen that the family will have to be split. In a lot of cases, the family is split by choice, because the wife will decide not to move for the good of the family. She has a good job and she is not in uniform. It is very difficult.

I have the responsibility to take care of the forces. I have the responsibility to produce combat-capable forces. That's what I've been tasked for.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I understand that, and I will follow up on it in the next round, because there's a particular case I want to talk to you about.

What I'm concerned about are several cases we've heard about where both the husband and wife are in the military and one has been posted— And this is not for the first time; in the last few years they've had posting after posting after posting that has separated the family. Once again, one is posted off somewhere when there have been others who have volunteered to be posted in his or her stead who are qualified. We've heard it in enough places that I know it is a very serious problem.

I'm going to talk about a particular example a little later. I know I'm out of time now.

The Chairman: Ms. Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Yes, I have a point of order.

We're here specifically today to talk about the care of injured personnel and their families. While Mr. Benoit and others may have some valid points for discussion, the purpose for this particular hearing is injured personnel. We know that this is a serious problem, and I think if we don't deal with it we're not giving it the attention it deserves.

I would ask that we restrict our questions and our talk to this particular case. We will have an opportunity at other hearings to talk about some of these other issues. I, for one, am very concerned about injured personnel, and I would like to think this is what we are spending our time on today.

Mr. Leon Benoit: If I could just respond to that, Mr. Chairman—

The Chairman: Very quickly, Mr. Benoit, please.

Mr. Leon Benoit: It was aimed at me. I recognize fully how serious this problem is, and I think I've expressed that, but I do not expect that the chair or anyone else on this committee will determine what line of questioning I will go on.

While I had the Chief of Defence Staff before us, which doesn't happen very often, I wanted to ask these questions on another topic. I think that's my right. I just don't think that anyone should be trying to interfere with that.

The injury situation is very serious, and I think we all recognize that.

The Chairman: General, if you would like to answer—

Gen J.M.G. Baril: I certainly can say that the welfare of the family is part of the quality of life, and posting and moving across Canada is a difficult concern for all the career managers and all the leadership.

When the law of the land tells me that I must accept as recruits single mothers or single fathers with four children, I've got to have the rules and regulations and the resources to take care of them. I cannot send a mother to Africa to save children who are starving when she has to abandon her children behind. It doesn't work this way.

Splitting families in Canada by choice is very difficult to accept, because sometimes we make the choice very difficult for them. We move them often. Splitting married couples is very difficult. Those who join the service or who get married within the service know from the start it is going to be very difficult. You have some who feel bad, but I have met many dedicated people who accept that fact because it was their choice at the beginning; it was their choice to join.

• 1025

When they make that choice to come in uniform as single parents or married couples, we try to make it easier on them while making sure the force still remains an operational organization. Hurting people is not the pleasure of any one of us.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Clouthier.

Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I guess Sir Winston Churchill is generally recognized as one of the great leaders of the modern era. He inspired generals and privates and civilians, especially in a time of crisis in the second world war. One of his famous quotations, and I'll paraphrase it, was that we should beware that the dark ages could return on the gleaming wings of silence. As evinced this morning, and by the people we've listened to in going around to the different bases, they will no longer be silent. They're coming forward and expressing their points of view, their concerns.

I agree with Mr. Benoit, and that in itself is a scary thought, when he said that the lieutenant-colonel's presentation here this morning was very comprehensive, very forward, and it bodes well for the future.

As my colleague Judi Longfield said this morning, we're here to talk about injuries to the military personnel as this pertains to their families.

I received a letter after our meeting in Base Petawawa. I'm going to get the clerk to distribute it after I read it. It's a one-page letter. I believe it gives a different point of view, and I'd like to share that with you. I received it yesterday. It's from Yohanna Ball from 28 East Street in Petawawa. It says:

Dear Mr. Clouthier:

The Pembroke Daily News ran a story in this past April 25 issue on “Base troops speak out”. Reading it made me remember a family crisis of our own.

My husband is now retired after 30 years of regular force and 7 years reserve service.

Our daughter Kimberly was born to us September 27 1969, she was a premature baby. The F.L.Q. crisis was on everyone's doorstep. Kimberly was born with severe congenital heart problems, and she spent her first year of her life in “Toronto Sick Kids”. On request the military moved our family to Borden so we could be closer to Toronto and my husband could still work for a unit in his own field. Robert (my husband) was a corporal at the time. Kimberly lived for six (6) years, and during this time there was always a driver and a vehicle at the ready to take me and my child to the hospital, be it day or night.

I remember one time when Kim became ill at home and had to be taken to Toronto. I just had to make a phone call and there was someone at the house to care for the boys, a car to take Kim and I to Sick Kids. We arrived at the hospital in the afternoon and I said to the driver that if he wanted to go home I would understand because I did not know how long it would take before her condition would be stabilized. Around three (3) a.m. I came down to the waiting room at the front of the hospital and there was the driver still waiting. “In case there was anything that he may be able to do” he said. This was in 1974 while Robert was in Cyprus. In the six (6) years of Kim's life, she had 7 total corrections, also she had a Tracheotomy for four years, and whenever she was critical (which was often) Robert was told by his superiors that “not to worry and come back to work when Kim was stable”. There was no deduction in his pay, no loss of holiday leave. I have yet to hear of a civilian company who would do what the military has done for us and still keep that man on staff. This went on for six long years, day and night.

We all know that military life is not a 9 - 5, five days a week job. These are men and women who are the first ones to lay down their lives for their country. It is a hard life, so if you have no intestinal fortitude, stay away from it. You can make life in the military difficult or easy on yourself. It is up to You. My point with this story is “In Our Time Of Need, The Military Was There For Us”. My husband and I will be eternally grateful.

Sincerely, Yohanna Ball

• 1030

General, this letter is I guess the exact opposite of a lot that we've been hearing—those who visit the bases. I personally believe that the military is trying to do the job.

I know that the colonel said the main purpose was the commitment to improve. General, this is about the third or fourth time you've appeared before this committee, and you continually reiterate that you're not a patient man. I appreciate that, because if someone is not patient, they like to get the job done. You're a man of action. As you said, you're not Dr. No, and you're not going to put up with it.

I believe, General, that you've been given an opportunity that few people have: you are the CDS. And when you are given a great responsibility, I guess there is much to do to discharge that duty in the proper manner to try to make things right. Certainly there is no question there are some problems with the military. But hopefully, General, you are the person to leave a legacy behind that is going to pull everything together. I'm not being antediluvian when I say this was 20 or 30 years ago, that we have to go back to the dark ages. I know you said that when you first got in there weren't very many cars. I didn't think you were that old, to remember the horse and buggy days.

General, I would just like you to comment on where we go from here. You did indicate that you were the boss, and that's fine. I love to hear someone saying they're the boss, they're going to make the tough decisions. If it's leaning on us, we are with you. If it's leaning on the higher echelons in government, I believe we want to do things right for the military. But at the end of the day, General, I've been hearing too many generals who, after they retire, come forward and say we should have done this, we should have done that. You seem to be the antithesis of that. Hopefully, you're the person the military's been looking for—not only in this regard about looking after the injured personnel, but in the whole plethora of problems the military is looking at.

Where do we go from here? The ball is in your court.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: Thank you.

A very distinguished general, highly decorated, with distinguished service, the Order of the Military Cross, called Radley-Walters, when I was training in Gagetown on the hill and looking at combat teams attacking, told me, “You never poke at the enemy. You hit the son of a bitch with your fist.” That's exactly what I'm trying to do. We've been poking at the problem for a great many years, but now it's so severe that we're going to hit it with a fist. I'm going to close the fist of the forces and I'm going to ask that the fist of the department is closed, but we need the fist of Canada to attack this very massive problem. I need all the support from all angles to do it, and I will need the resources to do it.

This is where I go from now. We are tightening everything and we are moving forward. It's going to be quite a massive attack. It will take a lot of resources, human resources, expertise. We lost a lot of expertise with the FRP program, unfortunately. But if I have to go out and hire it, we will hire it, the expertise. We just can't do it on our own now, with everything that we have. So I need all the support—

The sparks are going to come out. We're moving forward.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: If General Grant Radley-Walters was your mentor, you had an excellent mentor. I know him well. And he's smart enough, Mr. Benoit, to retire in the great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

Thank you very much, General, and good luck.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: Thank you, sir.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Clouthier.

General, we also have quite a few fists on this committee, but on a lot of occasions they're aimed at each other.

Monsieur Price.

Mr. David Price: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was wondering if I could direct a couple of questions to Colonel Cameron.

The Chairman: Oh yes.

Mr. David Price: What I wanted to ask about is where we are at this stage with mefloquine. Since it was an experimental drug that we ended up using, I have a couple of questions. First of all, was mefloquine manufactured in Canada? I realize it was an experimental drug, and the problems that came from after— Maybe Colonel McLellan could go on to how that's being handled.

Col Scott Cameron: First of all, I can't specifically tell you where the drug we used was manufactured. I can certainly get that information for you. I suspect it may well have been manufactured in the United States. I just don't know that specific fact.

• 1035

Mr. David Price: Was it used on American troops also?

Col Scott Cameron: Yes, the Americans used mefloquine quite frequently.

Mr. David Price: So it was sort of a carryover.

Col Scott Cameron: If I can make a comment on the mefloquine issue, mefloquine is now an approved drug. At the time it was used that you're referring to it was in the process of getting approval in Canada. As you know, because Canada is not a tropical country, many medicines we must use to protect our troops in tropical environments are not approved in Canada because they're not used in Canada. So we're often faced with the situation of using a drug that may be approved elsewhere in the world to protect our people, and we use the special access program through Health Canada to obtain that approval.

Since that time, as you know, the mefloquine drug has been approved. It is widely used worldwide, not just by military forces but by travellers to these regions. Like any medication it has some side effects. There's a lot of controversy over the level of side effects, but there has been a lot of study done outside of militaries around the world, looking at potential behavioural and psychiatric side effects of the drug. To date, these studies have shown that these effects are very rare.

Mr. David Price: But we are not using it at all in the military at this point.

Col Scott Cameron: We have no occasion to use it right now, but certainly should the opportunity arise again we would do as we always do and make a very detailed assessment of the risks and benefits and recommend the medication we feel provides the best protection.

We have to remember that malaria is the single most deadly infectious disease in the world, so it's serious business and really must be protected against.

Mr. David Price: There are other preventatives for malaria.

Col Scott Cameron: There are other preventatives, and in certain situations one drug is better than another, depending on what strain of malaria is prevalent in the area.

Mr. David Price: The other thing then is anthrax. My information tells me now that anthrax will be manufactured in Canada. A contract is being given out for the manufacture of anthrax. I'm wondering what the testing is now. It's been tested in the States—we've gone through that—and as far as I know it is really safe. There is one in x number who might have special reactions to it. If it's going to be manufactured here in Canada, will Canada do a complete testing on it, or will we go along with the tests that have been done in the States?

Col Scott Cameron: First of all, I'm unaware of any contract that is being awarded or has been awarded to manufacture anthrax vaccine in Canada. Any medication we use in the Canadian Forces must meet Canadian standards, and we have several mechanisms to do that. Whether or not we actually test a particular product depends on our degree of faith in the manufacture of that product and in the documentation they provide us in terms of its safety, efficacy, and so on. I don't know if that answers your question.

I'm sorry, I forgot your last question.

Mr. David Price: That's what I was looking for, just to see how far we go.

Maybe Colonel McClellan could answer this. On the problems that developed with the mefloquine, what has happened since then with these people who were having problems with it?

LCol R.G. McClellan: Are you talking about psychological problems after mefloquine?

Mr. David Price: Yes.

LCol R.G. McClellan: Anyone who is in the Canadian Forces who develops a psychological illness, in the same way as a broken leg, gets appropriate treatment for that.

Mr. David Price: I guess I'm looking particularly at the group that came out of Somalia, because that's where it was brought up about the possible side effects that created some of those problems. Has there been a follow-up through that group that used mefloquine?

LCol R.G. McClellan: To my knowledge there hasn't been one, uniquely and specifically. Any member of that group who presents with a medical need is provided treatment, but as far as looking at the group as a whole—one, two, three—

Mr. David Price: You haven't had any specific set-up on it.

LCol R.G. McClellan: No.

Mr. David Price: Okay.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: I'm concerned now because I've used mefloquine maybe 10 times since 1991 and nobody has talked to me since then.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Col Scott Cameron: Maybe I could add a comment. A study has been planned to look at the specific sort of military effects of mefloquine. We have not yet had a deployment where we used it in a wide enough scope that we could do the study.

Mr. David Price: Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

• 1040

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you. Before giving the floor to Mr. Benoit, I'd like to ask Colonel McLellan a few questions.

In your presentation you refer to an improvement team made up of people from National Defence and Veterans Affairs. I'd like to have a bit more information about this. Is it a permanent team? I know that it was created recently but will it remain in existence? How often do members meet? How many members are there? Who sits on this committee? Do you talk about specific cases at your meetings? Do you talk about soldiers who have problems or more general matters? That's my first question.

[English]

LCol R.G. McClellan: With your leave,

[Translation]

I do speak a bit of French

[English]

but I will answer in English. The review team was established for the singular purpose of responding to the direction from the Chief of the Defence Staff to go out there and find out who I had who was injured, find out how they were treated, what they say about it, and what they recommend we should do to get better.

My initial impression was we have to take them from all of the elements of the Canadian Forces, but I chose a number of senior social work officers because I knew they had the interviewing and listening skills required. It was only for the purpose of this part of the exercise that they were put together.

So we don't continually meet. We did while we were going through the process and we did talk about specific cases, and, as I mentioned in my presentation, we did take specific action in the short term for short-term needs. It's not anticipated that this team will be together for the rest of the review. It's not required, frankly. The real work has to start here in terms of answering the requests of the members we talked to, so it was essentially disbanded at the end of the first stage.

[Translation]

Gen. J.M.G. Baril: Mr. Chairman, I think you're talking about the interdepartmental team.

[English]

between the Canadian Forces and Veterans Affairs. I would like to get the precise answer to the questions you have, from the terms of reference to frequency of meetings and the understanding between those two departments, and come back to your committee, if I could.

[Translation]

The Chairman: To add to what was said on both sides this morning, it is true that we discussed all sorts of problems during our visits of the bases. I think that this initiative you've taken is very important to smooth out the difficulties between the two departments. So I'd greatly appreciate receiving this information.

Gen. J.M.G. Baril: Mr. Chairman, I think the two departments agree that we've been pointing a finger at each other for too long and that we must now get down to brass tacks and take care of people. They belong to the two departments.

[English]

The Chairman: I have one last point, Colonel, if I may. I still have some time.

You say in your report that:

I am very heartened to see the support this initiative is receiving at the highest levels within the CF/DND and within Veterans Affairs.

I wouldn't call them studies, but has any follow-up been done to see what the rank and file think about this? Or do we know if the people who were injured are approving of this new method of doing things?

LCol R.G. McClellan: To my knowledge, there will be no further follow-up study to find out what they think. They've called me and they've called other people and have said this is really good; they are really glad this initiative has gotten this far, because they didn't believe it when we went to see them. They did not believe we would get this far with their story. I know that for a fact, but I'm not going to go out and re-contact them all and ask what they think about this. They have my number and they've called.

The Chairman: I guess they would call. Thank you very much, Colonel.

LCol R.G. McClellan: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

• 1045

I must say I came this morning with some, in fact a lot of, tough questions about some particular cases and just some tough questions on what we've heard at committee. Your report, Colonel, was of a quality, as I've said before, that it really headed off a lot of those questions, and I'm very pleased about that. I'm not going to pursue any of the particular issues I was going to. I just really wish I could believe this will be followed through, and I hope it will be followed through. I really think it's very important.

The one thing I don't think has been talked about very much yet is the so-called minor injuries. This is something we've heard quite frequently before the committee and in the breaks we have when we're out at the bases.

People who are doing some pretty severe activity of some kind and are injured, and they suffer with it as long as they can—foot problems, for example, are very common—and then they suffer with it to a point where they just can't feel they can operate any more, but they still hesitate to go to a doctor because they know that if the doctor determines this injury will prevent them from doing their duty, he has to report it. They're afraid it could end their careers, quite frankly. This is from what they say would seem like a fairly minor injury, but so often the reaction to them is “You're whiners and complainers; stop whining”. That's the first reaction. We heard this often, so I think it happens again and again.

I'm just wondering if there was anything done in this report to deal with those types of situations. Often these injuries are aggravated because they just hesitate to go to the doctor. Someone made a comment earlier that they're afraid this is what will happen. If the doctor sees the injury, he or she will report it. The commanding officer then, if it becomes worse— They're not only afraid it may end their career, but in reality it may end their career in the forces.

The problem is by not dealing with these so-called minor injuries sooner, they often are aggravated to a point where they do lead to the end of the career, to exactly that. So what they're afraid of happens.

Was there anything in this study to deal with that type of injury, which is far more common than the extremely serious injuries?

LCol R.G. McClellan: There were certainly a great number of folks who responded, although not those we interviewed directly. We made the conscious decision, since we only had a certain number of people a certain time, to only personally interview all those serious injuries and very serious injuries. But a great number of folks who had minor injuries like that, on the soccer field or in the garage where they were repairing the truck, did come forward and express that kind of concern. It didn't seem to us, though, that they were not going to the MIR, to the doctor. The problem for them started when they went to the MIR and got treated and didn't have that gosh darn CF-98 filled out. That came back to haunt them later.

There are a number of folks who are concerned and worried about their career, and so would I be if I had a young family and kids to put through school and that kind of stuff. I would worry about that, and maybe I wouldn't do that as well.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Does this study really deal with that type of injury at all?

LCol R.G. McClellan: Yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: It did?

LCol R.G. McClellan: We didn't just look at very serious injuries and serious injuries. All of those people who were injured, minor injuries as well, with psychological injuries and physical injuries, were all part of the review.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Again, this was stated to be a serious problem for some of the people we heard from, who I've talked to. These injuries, because they weren't treated, they believe did lead to the end of their career. And because they weren't reported when they should have been, so their documentation wasn't there, they're not going to get the kind of pension they feel they should get.

I suppose it's more likely we'll hear from people who feel they've been wronged, but we heard from a pretty large number. What recommendations are in your report in terms of dealing with that type of situation?

LCol R.G. McClellan: Dealing specifically with the issue of being afraid to report because you're worried about your career? Is that what you're asking?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes.

LCol R.G. McClellan: A number of folks told us—

Mr. Leon Benoit: And the treatment received—“you're a whiner”—from the commanding officer. Quite a common response is, “Stop whining and get on with it. This is the army. We don't want to raise pansies; we just can't have pansies in the army”.

• 1050

I understand it. There's a lot of truth to that. I mean, you have to have— That's an old expression, I guess. It kind of dates me. But I understand the balance. We have to have a fit and ready military. I understand that completely. But this is a serious problem. So what were your recommendations?

LCol R.G. McLellan: One of the recommendations dealing with that pansy issue you've brought up was that attitudes have to change. I know you can't legislate attitude changes, can you? You can teach that by example and that kind of thing, but attitudes come to us about 10 minutes before we're born and they leave us about 10 minutes after we die. It's very hard to legislate attitude changes.

When Private Bloggins presents to the MIR or to his commanding officer with an injury and the officer responds to him that way, then it's clear to me that perhaps the officer has not heard him, or perhaps Private Bloggins presents every morning at 8 a.m. for an injury. So it's a hard question to answer.

Mr. Leon Benoit: But you made a point here on attitudes, and I think this is important. I'll just relate it back to Mr. Clouthier's letter that he read earlier. This dates back to 1969 to 1974 or thereabouts. Those are the two dates mentioned. That's 20 years ago, and I really do get the impression that the attitude wasn't the same then, that morale was better, not perfect but better than— We heard it again and again, that morale is deteriorating in the Canadian Forces.

This letter really, to me— I know it's just one example, it's one case, but it really does reinforce what I had already kind of determined, that the attitude in the military has changed and not for the good, in terms of taking care of the men and women in the forces. If they're injured, you take care of them—

LCol R.G. McLellan: If they're not injured, you take care of them, too.

Mr. Leon Benoit: But that's what I think we've heard; that isn't happening the way it should be happening.

The Chairman: Mr. Benoit, your time is up, but I believe the general wanted to comment on some of the things you've said.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: I have two points.

The first, Mr. Benoit, is the point you raised about— I think you called it minor injuries. It is a serious concern.

With all the downsizing we have to face and being more efficient, it has become very difficult to keep people in the service who are injured, who really cannot give 100% to the tasks they have been doing, for whatever reason, whether they be injuries on the soccer field or in operations, and we have— I'll call them harsh policies in place to make sure anyone who serves can serve anywhere in Canada or abroad and is deployable within his trade; otherwise he goes out.

When we do things, it seems sometimes that if it's worth doing, it's worth overdoing. I just want to make sure we're not overdoing it. We have the policy. It has been tested in front of the courts of our country, but I want to apply some humanity to this thing also. I think that's what you were raising.

The other is if we're in a downslide and not taking care of our people— I think you can have a pretty big stack of letters, such as Mr. Clouthier has given, that could be written for things that happened yesterday, a year ago, or 10 years ago. We have a lot of good stories out there all the time that are not being told, but we have too many bad stories that are still available. That bothers the hell out of me.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mrs. Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I will be very brief.

You reference a number of reports that have been tabled on the subject of injured personnel, and you mention the “Study of the Treatment of Members Released from the CF on Medical Grounds”, which was 1997; “Review of Casualty Reporting: Final Report, August 1996”; the “DND/VAC Improvement Team Final Report, September 1997”; “Modernization of the Quality of Life in the Army: Final Report, 1995”.

We know this issue has been studied, that there are some excellent recommendations in this report. But you also say you're not going to recommend actions previously recommended. Are you suggesting that for everything that's been in these reports, the action has taken place, or that this supersedes it? How are these all going to mesh?

• 1055

LCol R.G. McLellan: First of all, I made that statement because what I didn't want to do was duplicate what was already done. In each of these reviews, the study of the treatment of members released from the CF is relative to the one we did, which is why I put it in there for reference purposes. As a matter of fact, that particular review is now being coordinated through me, with the recommendations in phase II of this one.

With regard to the review of casualty reporting, not a lot has been done on that to this point. There will be now, because that will also be rolled up with action in this one.

The DND-VAC improvement team did just an excellent piece of work, because it gave us a clear picture of where we were and where we weren't. It gave us direction as to where we should go. I'm really pleased with the results of that.

So they're not hanging out there, and we're not going to duplicate or reinvent wheels, but we really want to make sure we can roll them all up into one approach to the care of injured personnel.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: So they will be taken into consideration and they will be acted on.

LCol R.G. McLellan: Oh, you bet your bippy.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Because I think the sense is that there have been a number of excellent studies done over the course of the years. We could probably fill the desktops in this room, five or six feet high, with reports that have been written where people have poured out their heart and soul. Every time we go they say, “And I told this committee, and I told this committee, and I told this committee, and I told the one before that, and a friend of mine told the one before that”. I mean, the frustration—

I understand, General, you're anxious to take your fist now and do it. I guess I want to know that the excellent work that's been done before will be consolidated and rolled into one, and acted upon.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: I certainly can assure you of that. Not only will it be consolidated into one big project and one big fist, but also anywhere we have the authority to be involved. That's why I think we've been poking through all the results of the reports we have.

I also have heard many times that the time for study is finished and to get to action, which certainly is my view. But it was so massive that while we were sorting out the small problems we have the authority for, we now have to come out with the bulldozer. This is the bulldozer.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: When might we see that bulldozer, as it were, rolling up?

LCol R.G. McLellan: It's going down there now, in first gear.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: I think the engine is rolling.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Okay, great.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

This will bring an end to our session with your group this morning. I want to thank everyone for coming.

Colleagues, I think we'll take a five-minute break to let the new witnesses take their places.

• 1100

• 1109

The Chairman: I would like to welcome everyone back. We're very happy to have with us this morning representatives from the Royal Canadian Legion; the Canadian Association of Veterans in UN Peace-keeping; and the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association. I believe we will start with Mr. Keast.

• 1110

If I understood correctly, the three of you will make presentations and then we'll go to question period. Mr. Gardam, you will be splitting your time.

Mr. R.E. Keast (Assistant Director Service Bureau, Dominion Command, Royal Canadian Legion): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. It is a pleasure to be able to speak to you here today about this important topic.

The Royal Canadian Legion has long prided itself in representing those who have served their country. In the past, this focus has been on the veterans of both world wars and Korea. However, increasingly those who have served the Canadian Forces after that period need our assistance as they navigate the maze of regulations and policies that constitute the disability system under the Pension Act.

It was therefore a most welcome step to have our overtures to integrate more fully into the world of modern-day service personnel accepted. This was particularly evident when Lieutenant-General Dallaire had Veterans Affairs Canada representatives and us join him at the table in his appearance before SCONDVA in March 1997, when he talked in terms of the extended family.

With the legion's network of approximately 1,500 branches, most with a volunteer service officer, and 500,000 members, we are ideally situated across Canada—and I understand we have 21 branches in the United States and three in Germany—to meet the needs of members and former members of the Canadian Forces.

In addition, our cadre of professional service officers—15 at provincial commands across the country, five at Dominion Command in Ottawa, and one in the Dominion Command sub-office in Charlottetown—represent applicants at all levels of the disability pension process under the Pension Act. That includes first applications, research of the same, reviews, appeals, and reconsiderations. Overall, it is estimated we do approximately 10% of the volume of claims, with Veterans Affairs handling the rest. This is at all stages as well.

The categorization of the relationship as an extended family is most appropriate. The legion has viewed itself as a member of the Canadian Forces' extended family since its inception in 1926. Recently, in order to bring our own organization and Veterans Affairs Canada more in tune with the needs of modern-day service personnel, we have focused our efforts in a number of areas.

The legion continues to seek ways to help in the area of disability pensions as it touches on still-serving and recently released members of the regular and reserve forces.

As we speak, the director of our service bureau is in Dubrovnik, Croatia, at the first international conference on the psycho-social consequences of war, with a focus on PTSD, or post-traumatic stress disorder. This forum will bring together over 300 experts from around the world to deal with this very difficult but increasingly common disability, as more and more of our peacekeepers come out of special duty areas afflicted with the disorder.

In October 1998 the legion is sponsoring a symposium in Charlottetown. We are inviting the Canadian Forces to send representatives from the administrative support side and the medical side, in particular the post-traumatic stress clinic personnel.

• 1115

Veterans Affairs will also have an opportunity to put its adjudicators, its head office medical advisers, and other key personnel in the forum. For its part, the Royal Canadian Legion will have all its provincial and Dominion Command service officers and members of its veterans services and seniors committees present.

Members of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, the VRAB, located in Charlottetown, will be able to attend as well. So people from all stages in the pension process will have access to this symposium.

Dr. Matthew Friedman, head of the post-traumatic stress disorder centre in White River Junction, Vermont, is being invited as the keynote speaker.

General Dallaire and his staff will be invited to participate, as they did in our earlier session in October 1996. In this way we hope to significantly advance our collective ability to help those suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, whether they still are in the forces or have been thrust upon the civilian medical support system after release.

Legion service officers present to Second Career Assistance Network, commonly referred to as SCAN, seminars at various military bases across the country, at both the Dominion Command and provincial command levels. At these sessions we explain the workings of the disability pension system as well as the fact that both Veterans Affairs Canada and the legion service officers are there to represent or assist.

We have a lot of interest from still-serving personnel at these seminars. I can recall the last one I did in Borden last year had a very attentive crowd. It covers a wide variety of topics. There were a lot of questions about the disability pension process; a lot of things they didn't understand, hadn't been told, or wanted further information on; and a lot of misconceptions. Some didn't believe they could apply while they're still serving. Some asked me, “Well, I don't have a CF-98, a report on injuries. Does that mean I can't apply?”

I've heard mention today of these reports on injuries. It's very important that we have one; it helps the process. But I've been doing this for 10 years now, and I'm not aware of anywhere in the Pension Act where it requires a report on injuries to gain a pension. It's an element in assisting us to prove it. We have to prove there's a disability and we have to prove it was related to service. The report on injuries is one way of helping us link it to service. But often it isn't done, or if it is done, page 2 on the duty status isn't completed. That's not fatal to the claim, and we have to counsel these people that the forms can be completed after the fact.

Another thing that comes out is people say, “Should I apply now or will it affect my career? Should I wait until I get out?” Certainly the evidence is more fresh while the person's still serving, whether there is or isn't a report on injuries. They can get witness statements if they're still serving, maybe letters from colleagues and what not, and medical information. So we tell them it's up to them, but they can apply while they're serving. They can't be paid until the day after release, unless it was a special duty area.

So we feel these SCAN seminars are very important, and we're quite willing to go out and assist the forces to put forward information and offer the legion's assistance to those still-serving and ex-serving personnel.

For example, one of our service officers will be going to Germany from 2 to 9 May 1998 in support of a Canadian Forces personnel briefing team. He will be doing three service-type seminars in Geilenkirchen for Canadian Forces personnel on the disability pension process, the types of disability pensions, what's required, the appeal process, and the benefits. So again, we're eager and willing to help the forces and the still-serving members with information flow where we can assist.

Additionally, our director of the service bureau has attended meetings with the commander of a combat training centre in Gagetown and the army personnel administration officers in Ottawa within the past year. One of our service officers has lectured at the basic medical officers' course in Borden to brief newly recruited medical officers on the issues relating to disability pensions and on ways they as military doctors can assist with the pension process. As you're aware, it's not just enough to get a diagnosis of a disability. That second step of relating the disability to military service is the important step. Doctors are often of help in that process as well.

• 1120

The legion was represented on the team reviewing injured personnel and their families, as was Veterans Affairs Canada, as an adviser. This crucial report will form the framework for the Canadian Forces to become more sensitized to the needs of those who have become disabled in the service of their country.

At every opportunity, the Royal Canadian Legion will work with the Canadian Forces and Veterans Affairs Canada to promote the well being of those who have served their country. Whether it is a disability pension case or the need for a fair result with respect to indexing Canadian Forces superannuation benefits for those released for disability reasons, the legion, as part of the extended family, will continue to play its part. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Gardam.

Mr. John Gardam (National President, Canadian Association of Veterans in United Nations Peacekeeping): I'm John Gardam. I'm the president of the Canadian Association of Veterans in United Nations Peacekeepers.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we wish to thank you for the invitation to make this presentation. For us, this is quite momentous because it's the first time both of the national peacekeeping associations have joined together to speak on behalf of the many veterans, the living and deceased, who have served as peacekeepers.

Canada is justifiably proud of its record of service to peacekeepers. We've served in nearly every peacekeeping mission, plus some that were not under the auspices of the United Nations. We are currently, of course, serving in the multinational force and as observers in the Sinai Peninsula between Egypt and Israel.

Canada's record of concern and compassion for its peacekeeping veterans who have been injured or killed, and their families, is less than a proud one. We have not done right by them. The aim of this talk today is to identify some of the system defects in the care of Canadian Armed Forces personnel who are either injured or killed on peacekeeping services, as well as the defects in the assistance and information provided to the families of injured or killed peacekeepers. We will propose a solution to these defects that will be seamless and easily understood, and should be used.

This talk is in two parts. First, I will give you a talk on the flavour of peacekeeping, as seen by Canadian peacekeepers, by defining what it is. Then, Jim MacMillan-Murphy, from our sister organization in Victoria, will speak to you on the other parts.

We will propose a solution that is simple in creation, straightforward in execution, and understood by all. It will be a solution for Canadian peacekeepers, proposed by Canadian peacekeepers, and if the stakeholders wish, participated in by Canadian peacekeeping veteran service organizations. We will help. Those of us who are retired will help make the system work.

This talk will not deal with issues particular to Canadian civilian employees who serve in various positions as staff on peacekeeping missions. It is important to note, however, that three Canadian civilians died in the Vietnam mission between 1954 and 1973, and one died just recently in Macedonia in the former Yugoslavia in 1997.

First of all, let me define for you what veterans and peacekeepers are. A veteran is defined by The Concise Oxford Dictionary as “one who has long experience in some area of endeavour, including fighting war”.

By the way, I have given a copy of my book The Canadian Peacekeeper to the chairman. It is to be kept by the committee, and it is up to date as of 1992. It deals with all the peacekeeping missions up until 1992.

• 1125

We believe this definition quite clearly describes Canada's long-term commitment to peacekeeping and the continuing employment of Canadian Armed Forces in the service of peace.

A peacekeeper is a member of the Canadian Armed Forces who has been sent by the Government of Canada to participate in a peacekeeping mission sanctioned by the United Nations or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or any other group for collective defence that has been entered into by Canada.

A point here is that with regard to the Peacekeeping Monument, which you heard earlier I have had a lot to do with, we decided that in putting the missions on the wall at that monument— regardless of who ordered our troops to go on peacekeeping missions, whether it was a Geneva accord, the United Nations, or now, as it is in the former Yugoslavia, by NATO, all those missions would be recorded.

A very important role performed in many of the peacekeeping missions is that of military observer. He's a military officer assigned to an area within the peacekeeping mission area. He must be very knowledgeable of that area, because it's he who meets and establishes mutual respect with the faction leaders in the area to negotiate the re-establishment of economic activity, family reunions and a host of other activities, all designed to return the area to its peaceful state.

One of the key reasons we put an UNMO, as they are called, at the Peacekeeping Monument is that a vast number of our peacekeeping missions in the past have been unarmed military officer observers. This UNMO observes and reports violations of the ceasefire agreements, including overflights and unauthorized activity between the ceasefire lines. When a ceasefire is broken, it's that UNMO who negotiates to re-establish the ceasefire, no matter how perilous the situation is, for that is his role. He will do this unarmed, equipped only with his military training, experience, tact, diplomacy, and even a fair bit of guile, along with the mutual respect he has already established with the faction leaders. He's also hopefully in radio contact with the headquarters so that they know, minute by minute, what is going on out in the area.

Canadian sailors, soldiers and airmen have served all over the world since 1948 under the flag of the UN, for several non-UN missions, and currently, in the former Yugoslavia, under the flag of NATO. In every mission the role has been either to provide military observers, to provide combat troops for front-line duties of manning observations posts and conducting vehicle patrols, or to provide support to the mission by way of aviation, communication and logistics, and in some cases all three.

For further evidence of service as a peacekeeper and long service that connotes a veteran of every service, you only have to look at the medals of todays armed forces members to see that so many have been peacekeepers in many, many places. I think the Maclean's magazine of a couple of weeks ago, which had the picture of a peacekeeper on the cover, one from Petawawa, is proof of the pudding as to where people have served and that they keep going back and serving over and over again.

For those of you who see a number on a service ribbon, that means the number of times that person has served in that particular mission. For instance, we have a retired Brigadier Beattie here in Ottawa who wears a 12 on his Cyprus ribbon. And there is one sergeant in the postal corps who wears a 14, because he was one of only two sergeants who were able to do that duty and he went back to Cyprus every six months; he and another fellow shared the duty.

Canadian peacekeepers contribute to each and every mission in so many different ways and at so many different levels of effort, both on and off duty, that our contribution can only be seen as trying to re-establish peace and harmony among the people of the country in which the mission is located. We feel there is no greater accolade to confer upon a Canadian service person than to call him or her a Canadian peacekeeper.

• 1130

So what is peacekeeping? The United Nations charter authorizes both peacekeeping and peace enforcement. A peacekeeping mission is established only when both antagonists request one. A peace enforcement mission may be established by the United Nations to intervene in the internal affairs of a state or between states in order to re-establish peace in an area of conflict. The missions prior to 1989 were in the main peacekeeping. The missions after 1989 have evolved into multifaceted missions that may include peace enforcement at the beginning and gradually move to peacekeeping. The missions to former Yugoslavia and Haiti are good examples of this. The difference is that peace enforcement may result in the use of arms to impose peace upon the warring factions.

When we put the Peacekeeping Monument together, the original plan was to put the armed sentry above the word “reconciliation” and to put the UNMO on the side that said “in the service of peace”. The day before we were to unveil it, the sculptor said, “Stop, we can't put the armed sentry above the word `reconciliation', because if we do it means reconcile or else.” So we changed them around, much to the shock of the Governor General when he pulled the sheet and unveiled the monument, as he was supposed to, to find the statue was different from what was in the script we had given him a couple of days before.

The Government of Canada criteria for peacekeeping are well explained in our submission. But there are seven criteria for the acceptance of participating in a peacekeeping mission. The first two are the most important: the mandate must be clear and enforceable; the principal antagonists must agree to cease fire and must agree to Canada coming into their country to help bring about peace. Prior to 1989 most regional conflicts and the antagonists generally were well supported by either Russia or the United States, but now, of course, the Russian influence has grown less and less to make sure a country abides by the peacekeeping agreement.

Classic peacekeeping is defined first of all by UNEF I—and that is the mission I served with—in the Sinai Peninsula between Egypt and Israel. We carried on the same classic peacekeeping in Cypress. But gradually peacekeeping began to evolve, involving humanitarian assistance, economic aid, and training and retraining of civilians, including their peace forces.

For instance, our team went to Afghanistan to train the civilians in how to live in a country that was smothered with anti-tank and anti-personnel mines. We taught the civilians how to survive in that environment. Today peacekeeping missions are more often than not multifunctional, because in a state that's pulled apart by internal conflict, you can't just deal with one aspect of what's gone wrong in the country. Good examples of this, of course, are Yugoslavia and Haiti.

A feature of classic peacekeeping is that it may stretch on for years, as it did in Cyprus. Another feature is that there will never be units from the superpower nations, only the middle powers like Canada. These countries need to balance the essential political, racial and religious mix in order that the peacekeeping forces serving there are not going to cause a problem.

• 1135

For instance, when we went into Angola we suddenly realized that the peacekeeping mission must be totally fluent in French. This caused an inordinate problem for some of the countries other than Canada, because they had very few people in their military forces who could speak French. But that whole mission was done in the French language, and that was a first.

Canada has usually been asked to provide aviation, communication and logistics units because we are one of the few middle powers that speak both official UN languages and are willing to participate in peacekeeping and we can make these highly technical units available. Nonetheless, these missions were in hostile regions of the world. The risks were considered acceptable, but Canadians still got killed and injured doing their job.

Since 1989 things have changed. The fall of the U.S.S.R., the end of the Cold War, and the steadying influence of the superpowers has dissolved, and the regional conflicts into which peacekeeping missions have been sent have become more and more dangerous for the peacekeepers. These conflicts are often internal to one state rather than interstate. Witness El Salvador, Angola and the former Yugoslavia. The mandate often has required that the warring factions be disarmed, demobilized and moved from violent conflict towards political reconciliation.

Peace enforcement missions have also become necessary. The missions began as peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance to help aid organizations deliver food and other aid, but then it become a fact, especially in the former Yugoslavia, that they would sooner fight than live with peace, and we got jammed in the middle. This meant, of course, that in many cases the type of equipment we took to peacekeeping changed. For instance, the original group that went into Yugoslavia took along their heavy weapons, in many cases, that they had been using in Germany, but armoured personnel carriers and helicopters are a common item of use nowadays.

Two incidents that demonstrate the hostile nature of our missions come to mind. I won't go over what happened to the Medak pocket because I've read in the newspaper that you've already been well briefed on that. But I think the story of Master Corporal Isfeld, who went back a second time into a minefield he'd already cleared— In the night, somebody had put the mines back in, and he was blown up and killed. Also, in Rwanda there are numerous examples of gangs turning on UN personnel.

It's for these examples and many others that Canadian peacekeepers must be accorded the fullest implementation and interpretation of the term “veteran”. We can't shilly-shally around with this any longer, because many of the peacekeeping people have served in cases of hostile acts, and they are veterans.

Of particular interest regarding the Medak pocket is the fact that nearly 50% of Second Patricias were reserve forces personnel, and they also of course deserve the right to be called veterans of peacekeeping.

I'll now shut up and hand over to Jim.

Mr. Jim MacMillan-Murphy (Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association): Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

I'll now talk about the public perception.

The public perception of peacekeeping is that Canadian troops are going in to maintain an already peaceful situation, but this is far from the truth. The public has been largely unaware that Canadian troops have been killed and wounded by hostile fire and landmines in many of the missions we have participated in. Because of this lack of public awareness, Canadian peacekeeping veterans are not recognized for the role they have played in these potentially and often really hostile regions to which they have been sent.

The public attitude and perception is accordingly reflected in such things as the denial of a book of remembrance to deceased peacekeepers alongside the other six books that already exist in the Peace Tower. Peacekeepers are not bestowed the same level of public care and compassion accorded to their brethrens in arms of the Second World War and Korea.

• 1140

Systemic failures: I will now turn to the systemic problems that have affected the injured and deceased peacekeepers and their families.

When war breaks out, it usually begins with a formal declaration of hostilities between the combatants. Such a formal declaration has created the legal basis for the employment of Canadian troops.

A peacekeeping mission begins with a resolution by the United Nations to interpose a body of troops and military observers between the combatants, who have agreed to cease fire and to accept the presence of such a mission. This is quite different from war, and has itself in Canada required special—

The Chairman: Mr. MacMillan, could you just slow down a little bit when you're reading? The interpreters have difficulty in following.

Mr. Jim MacMillan-Murphy: Very good. Sorry about that—it's my Newfie blood coming out. I'll go back to slow Canadian mode.

This is quite different from war, and has itself in Canada required special legal convenience to declare a peacekeeping mission area a “special duty area”, to ensure that Canadian troops maintain their rights and privileges for such things as pensions.

When severe injuries occur to a peacekeeper, the unit commanding officer has well-established responsibilities for reporting and evacuating the casualty out of the area. But because the unit remains in the mission area, once home in Canada the peacekeeper is too often deprived of the direct support and comradeship provided by his unit, and so too may his family, especially if the family resides at a considerable distance from the soldier.

Once released from direct medical care, the peacekeeper often has no one to assist him or her by answering questions, interpreting regulations, providing information and advice, or being an advocate for his concerns. This has resulted in the situations that have embarrassed the department and the government, as in the case of a peacekeeper who had to make a public issue over a wheelchair not being provided to him during his convalescence after being shot by a sniper in Bosnia. The same peacekeeper lost his medals when his kit was packed for him, and he had considerable difficulty obtaining help in replacing his medals, turning to the veterans organizations for help.

Why he was not provided an assisting officer to whom he could turn for answers is a good question. In many cases seen to date, the simple knowledge of the right organization and person to contact could have avoided much unnecessary stress and problems. The system appears to have simply overlooked this need.

When a peacekeeper is killed, the unit commanding officer has well-established responsibilities. The unit rear party provides an assisting officer to the peacekeeper's wife and family to help through the details of the funeral, but experience has shown that the selection of an officer for this duty is uneven, and it results sometimes in confusion for the family when the officer makes promises or incorrectly interprets a letter for them. The absence of the unit and its more capable staff can mean the loss of compassion and moral support for the family that the unit would normally provide.

A linked issue to the death or injury of a peacekeeper is just how long should the unit's responsibilities towards the peacekeeper and his family or to the widow and family continue? The regulations are silent on this matter, and perhaps should be. Regiments are a family and do look after their families to the extent that they can. But if a person was an augmentee from a base or reserve force unit, to whom can the widow turn for assistance, and for how long should the designated organization support the widow and family?

The same situation applies to an injured peacekeeper and his family. The answer is difficult to define, because each family will have its own inner strengths that will help it to heal faster or slower than others. The answer lies more in the area of ensuring that all things that are supposed to be done are completed, and then assessing the need for longer-term support and gauging the extent to which the stakeholders can provide the support, and which stakeholder is best equipped to do so.

• 1145

This is why there is a need for clarity in the roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders, the policies and procedures, and the need for all the elements of our proposal.

I will now present a set of six proposals that we consider will result in a seamless system that is straightforward to use by all the players and will meet all the needs of all the stakeholders, including the peacekeepers and their families, and all those tasked to help, aid and support them.

It is apparent that the greatest need is for clarity in the policy and guidance on the support to be provided to an injured peacekeeper and his or her family, or the widow and family of a deceased peacekeeper. Lack of information and uneven application cause additional and unnecessary grief to these people.

This is particularly true in the case of members of the reserve forces who volunteer for peacekeeping service. It often causes additional problems for DND. Sometimes problems can run on for a considerable period of time, and information and updates sometimes are not forthcoming and are vague or contrary.

For instance, eight months after her husband died, a widow still did not know who to contact regarding the headstone for her husband's grave.

Second, access to the rules and regulations and contact points must be centralized so that they can be accessed easily by those who need them. An on-line database accessible to the lowest levels of support seems to be the best solution. The database would be simply a large index to all the relevant topics, pointing the user to the regulations, the references, the responsible agency or authority, and most important of all, the contact point, including the person's name and telephone number.

This will provide a single start point for those tasked to aid the peacekeeper and/or his family. This will overcome the problem of the ill-informed assisting officer to the family. It will ensure that those responsible for the development of policy will be able to see the impact of the proposed changes.

Next, we propose the creation of a central section within National Defence headquarters with just one responsibility—to be the central contact point, and the advocates, for peacekeepers and their problems and those tasked to assist them.

This section will be responsible for continuous liaison with all the stakeholders, including those in other federal government departments, to ensure that the changes to the polices and regulations are dovetailed with one another and all are kept informed of changes and proposals.

As well, this section will monitor the individual case files to ensure that the various stakeholders' tasks are completed in a timely fashion, that roadblocks are resolved, and to stand ready to be able to advise and take action as required in each case.

This section will maintain the proposed database. It will operate a central support desk to which all inquiries will be directed so the problems and their resolution could be tracked and documented for further reference. We propose that members from our organizations volunteer their services to staff the central support desk as a way of reducing the overall costs of this proposal.

We propose that the role of the Canadian Forces social worker system be reviewed, defined, and publicized for all to know. There is a need, for example, to have more active participation by the social worker staff to help peacekeepers and their families through post-mission depression or post-traumatic stress disorder.

Training must be developed for unit medical officers and senior unit members in identifying personnel who are having difficulty coping with the stress of the mission so that treatment can begin early. In this, we recommend a review of the Canadian example for treating battle exhaustion in the Second World War, which was different from the Allies and worked quite well.

We recommend that there be a mandatory post-mission follow-up for all personnel, similar to what Sweden and Denmark have started.

Last, we propose that there be a review of the public affairs policy on the release of details when a peacekeeper dies from hostile fire. Two recent deaths got caught up in much confusion over the real cause of death—for example, the death of Corporal Gunther. The inability to get the real answers caused a great deal of grief to the families and some embarrassment to the government of a perceived cover-up.

• 1150

Canadians are a tough people, and we can take tough news. The fact that our peacekeepers do take casualties can be used properly to explain to Canadians why Canadian participation in peacekeeping is to make the world a better place. I will now hand back over to John.

Mr. John Gardam: In conclusion, I hope you've understood what we've tried to do here this morning: first of all, to define what a peacekeeper is and how that person is a veteran; to illustrate the need to recognize the peacekeeper as a veteran, and that it not be pushed under the carpet and forgotten; and to recognize the need to establish a system for the care of casualties in peacekeeping operations.

As Jim has already said, we're willing to put our money where our mouth is and assist in running the central agency here at National Defence headquarters. We recommend to you that the role and responsibilities of everyone involved in this process be clarified and publicized.

The passage of responsibilities in the affairs of the wounded or the family of the deceased from the unit to National Defence headquarters, to Veterans Affairs Canada, and anybody else involved in the process must be defined and made known. The responsibility and role of the Canadian Forces social work system also must be clarified and publicized, and the policy on the release of information in time of death or severe wounding of a peacekeeper has to be reviewed.

We really advocate the formation of a proactive interdepartmental response cell. This cell has to deal with, in a compassionate and helpful manner, all of the concerns of the wounded peacekeeper, their family, and the family of the deceased—and not stop at one time; there must be a follow-up with these people so that they do not feel forgotten.

Finally, the response cell has to be the advocate for the peacekeeper and/or his family. We're really asking Canada to return to the traditional standards and values of compassion that Hec Clouthier brought out so clearly in that letter.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thanks very much to all three of you.

We'll now go to question period, with Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation.

I'd like to start, if I could, with Mr. Gardam and your final comment there. You're saying, most of all, we advocate the return to the traditional values of compassion and fairness. I'd like you to comment on that a little more. Do you think things have changed that much over the years?

Mr. John Gardam: I write military history as a hobby. One of the books I've studied is When Your Number's Up by Desmond Morton. If you think we do things badly now, just listen to this case:

In 1914, the first wounded from the PPCLI returned to Halifax. They were to go into hospital. The officials at the time didn't know what to do, but they sure didn't want to show the Canadian public that Canadians had been wounded in battle. So they took their uniforms away from them and dressed them in hand-me-downs provided by the Salvation Army and sent them home in civilian clothes.

In that same book is a story of the man who really appealed for a pension. He had lost part of both arms and both his legs in a mine explosion in the trenches of the First World War. After much deliberation, he was finally given a pension of $1,000 a year.

We haven't a very good record from the first war.

From the Second World War—witness the current chief executive officer of the War Amps—the troubles the people who came home minus a leg went through to finally get a limb given to them was disgraceful. Cliff Chadderton was brought into this very building to be an aide to a member of cabinet so that he could wear his uniform and his peg-leg, in those days, to show off what the armed forces had done for Canada.

• 1155

Airmen who refused to fly in operations were declared lacking moral fibre, and they had their flying badge stripped off their uniform and were reduced in rank to private soldier. Many of them were sent home in disgrace. Merchant sailors who refused to sail on some rusty bucket and go out into the North Atlantic and the Pacific were thrown into jail for failing to sail.

So we mustn't look too far back in history to figure out how we did it in the old days and what we should be doing now. We should be looking at what we've done in the recent past and start thinking in a modern way.

Does than answer your question, sir?

Mr. Leon Benoit: So you're saying it depends how far back you go? You're advocating a return to traditional values of compassion and fairness, but in what time period are you measuring those traditional values?

Mr. John Gardam: When I last served, I was the director of careers for all the other ranks in the Canadian Forces—62,000, and we were in those days growing in number. I also ran the Career Medical Review Board at that time. So you'd decide on what's going to happen to Bloggins, the famous Bloggins, because he or she can't serve any more.

Because we were growing larger and not at breakneck speed to try to become smaller, we had some leeway as to what the career managers could do. I'll take somebody from his home riding. Of the young soldier who suffered so badly from poison ivy in Petawawa, they said, “Throw him out.” I said, “No damn way”, and we put him in the navy, where there is no poison ivy at sea. We salvaged him.

I would think today—

A voice:

[Inaudible—Editor].

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. John Gardam: Really the point is this. We had one peacekeeper who had lost a foot to a mine in Bosnia, and General de Chastelain was the CDS at the time, and his words to me were, “John, don't you put him out. Reclassify him; put him in another trade where he can be employed long enough for him to improve his educational level and his skills so he can get a job on civvy street.” We had the leeway to do that in those days.

Mr. Leon Benoit: If I could pursue that, career managers have been presented to us as the most hated people in the military. We've had a lot of concerns expressed about career managers. Obviously not all career managers can be bad people. We know that. So there has to be some problem with the regulations and the rules they're operating under. That has to be part of the problem.

But I'd like you to comment on that, you being a career manager. What do you think has changed? You could accommodate back then, it sounds like, and you did. There might have been people complaining back then about a lack of accommodation too, but what's changed? Are you aware of changes that have made it more difficult for career managers? Or don't they care any more?

Mr. John Gardam: The CDS pointed out one very critical fact. When you have a very small team, you have to ensure that every member of the team can do every job, because if you don't, the ones who can't do it end up causing problems for those who are healthy enough to do the job. This is why so many peacekeepers keep going back and back and back to Bosnia; they're the healthy ones. If you keep too many who are not battle-worthy and ready to fight, then you've ended up penalizing the ones who have stayed healthy.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So you're saying it's numbers? It's not the career managers or the rules they operate under; it's strictly numbers?

• 1200

Mr. John Gardam: I would say the career managers—and I've been out of the system now since 1984—today are literally shackled at what they can do, and as for unhealthy people or people with injuries who are going to take longer than a year to cure, they have to release them. They don't have a choice.

You see, in the old days every member of the forces who got cancer, when he or she got to the point where they had to be hospitalized, would come to the National Defence Medical Centre here in Ottawa. They would be placed on the medical patient holding list until they wanted to get out or they died. We looked after them. But now of course we just can't do that. We can't afford the luxury. And it's not a luxury, because people are the most valuable resource that's in the forces today, as it was in my time and Jim's time. It just has to be reinforced. The people have to know that they're going to be looked after or their dissatisfaction with the military is going to grow and grow, as you found in your time.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I think you've hit on a key problem. I think it's the general feeling that now the men and women serving feel that they won't be looked after if they're injured. In fact they're not, and maybe it is for the reasons you've said.

Mr. Jim MacMillan-Murphy: May I speak to that?

It's great when—especially in reference to the McLellan report—now all our concerns are down in black and white. That right now is starting to add to making the morale better, plus the fact that people like to see the man who's taken a personal interest in old soldiers. I mean, he gives his word. We all know it's there. And General Dallaire is not just talking the talk because he's walking that walk.

A lot of the peacekeepers, when they go into the operational zone and come back with the problems they have because of all the atrocities they see— sometimes we come back and we think that the higher officers don't understand what we've gone through. But clearly General Dallaire has been talking that talk because he's walked that walk and he's helped us a lot. So morale that way is good. It's because of this concentrated effort, as I said.

The McLellan report has just been released very recently and has already sent shock waves through the peacekeeping veterans movement. I'm getting phone calls all the time about it now. They're saying, this is good; are we going to be following up on it or is it going to be shelved? What I heard this morning from the CDS and from Colonel McLellan makes me feel good and I'll be able to pass that information on.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'd like to pursue the same line of questioning with Mr. Keast. You made the comment about veterans fighting for pensions, or the disabled fighting for pensions, and you're relating it to post-traumatic stress disorder. The committee has heard from several people, and I've heard from others as well, probably partly as a result of knowing that people had spoken to the committee with this disorder. They've expressed the concern that they're not only fighting for some kind of pension to help them through this, but in many cases they're actually fighting for their lives. And many are far more concerned about the fight for their lives than they are for the pension, although of course both are extremely important. They have to be able to live in the meantime and support their families. That's a great concern.

I was very interested in your comments that you are having a speaker from the post-traumatic stress disorder centre in White River Junction, Vermont. Any expertise we can get into Canada on this subject I think can only help, because many people are fighting for their lives—and we've heard that from them and their families. We've met some people who are in such bad shape that you really believe the fight for their lives isn't going to be much longer. So certainly that is so important, and I think there has to be a concerted effort to get all the expertise on this disease that we can get.

Could you comment any further on that? Do you know any more about what they might know there that we really don't or aren't applying here in Canada to treating this disease?

Mr. R.E. Keast: Certainly they'd have greater numbers in the United States just by definition.

• 1205

We talked about this at our conference in Charlottetown in 1996; and it was of interest then and we're following up again in 1998. We had guest speakers in 1996 as well, a retired psychiatrist from the forces, I believe, and another individual, so there's a lot of interest shown. Then the adjudicators from Veterans Affairs were present at that seminar, and you could almost hear a pin drop; it was a very moving address. We're following up on that because we believe we have momentum.

As I say, Jim Rycroft is over at that worldwide conference as we speak, so he'll be bringing back a wealth of information and be willing to share it with Veterans Affairs and DND. And we've invited all the key players to Charlottetown again this fall. I have a good feeling about that. We're doing all we can, and we will work closely with DND and VAC towards assisting not only still-serving but ex-regular members and veterans who might have this affliction. It's a disability, and we help people with all kinds of disabilities that they can relate to their military service.

Of course, with the special duty area service it's the insurance principle; they're covered 24 hours a day and really duty status isn't an issue in a special duty area. The CF-98 is more of interest for injuries during regular force outside of a special duty area. You can look at symptoms, diagnoses, all those things from a special duty area—when something onsetted, and incidents—and we're working with Veterans Affairs as to what they require for a diagnosis and all the elements required to prove the specific diagnosis and relate it to service. It's just one of the many disabilities we help individuals with, but certainly an important one.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'd like to pursue that a little more later. I understand my time is up.

Thank you.

Mr. John Gardam: Could I add one point here, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. John Gardam: The president of our association is now hospitalized here in Ottawa suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome. I had to step in and replace him in order to make this presentation. It's a very real thing.

I think you put your finger on the real problem here, and that is that we have to suspect the problem and not try to wait for a long time for it to prove itself in a hospital bed. In fact, the replacement for me after this presentation and for the fellow who's in hospital is Pierre Lamontagne. He's had to leave, unfortunately, but he is the new president of our association here in Ottawa.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Proud.

Mr. George Proud: Thank you very much, Chairman.

Gentlemen, welcome, and thank you for your presentations. They were three very informative and very necessary presentations, I believe, to add to our arsenal of recommendations that we'll be making in this report, I'm sure.

Mr. Gardam and Mr. MacMillan-Murphy, in terms of the presentations you made with the proposals, a lot of the things you've talked about we've heard from witnesses the committee has had before it, but you have specifically named some proposals and some ways that these can be brought to fruition. I believe that's what we have to zero in on. Many of the things you say we've heard time and time again. The recommendation you have about the veteran status for peacekeepers is something that has come to our attention on many occasions.

I just want to make a few comments and then I'll ask my questions.

You also talked about the need to go back far enough—although you didn't want to go back too far—to what we could call the good times, to re-establish some of those things that we heard so many concerns about; concerns that the health wasn't there and that the assistance wasn't there when people needed it. I believe that because what we have asked our military to do in the last specifically eight years has coincided with the downsizing of the force, it has, as you say, made it rather difficult. You see these people with their campaign ribbons with the numbers on them and it answers it all.

When I was in the former Yugoslavia in 1994, we met people who had been there then three times, and we hadn't been there all that long at that time. This goes to show us what the cutting back has done just in that respect, besides all of the other things we've seen when we've gone out to the bases in terms of what that has done right through to the housing and everything else.

• 1210

So I'm very heartened by your presentation and also by the fact that I think we have an excellent case to go to the government with and say that these are the things that must be done. There's no “should be” or anything; these things have to be done.

The veteran status is one that I will ask a question on at the present time to you people. As for the veteran status and peacekeeping veteran status, I will ask you that question, the members of the peacekeeping associations.

To Mr. Keast, I guess the legion feels probably the same way. But I guess my overall question on that specific thing is, are you saying this is for peacekeepers only or that all people serving in the forces should be deemed to be veterans when they finish? That's one question. I have another one after that. What's your feeling on that?

Mr. R.E. Keast: I can't speak for the legion as a whole, but just in my work in the last 10 years, I worked mainly with the Pension Act to help people with disability and death pensions, and I don't think the word “veteran” shows up in the Pension Act. It mentions members of the forces and ex-members of the forces, or something to that effect. So we don't get help from the statute.

Certainly the terms—I wouldn't say it's loosely worded—“World War I veteran” and “World War II veteran” for sure are almost across the board. There's no question about that. Personally, I would include Korean veterans and peacekeeping veterans. To me, they're all veterans. That's my personal view on it. I don't think that's in dispute. A bullet's a bullet, whether it's in Croatia, Italy, or Belgium. They all serve their country, That's how I feel personally.

Mr. Jim MacMillan-Murphy: It's very interesting when you look at the fact that we, as peacekeepers, have been campaigning for peace for 50 years now. That's almost three times longer than we, as a country, have been at war, including rebellions, World War I, World War II, and Korea.

We go into theatres of war. We're not the combatants, but we're in actual theatres of war. We take casualties and fatalities. We bring back the traumatic stuff we've seen.

The veterans committees themselves have no problem in recognizing it as such, but where we do run into problems is with certain bureaucrats who want to look at that. When you look at it, Korea wasn't a declared war, and neither was the Gulf War, yet they have no problems recognizing them. I just think the time has come for us to stop trying to—I don't know what word to use—attack the veterans. We should call a veteran what a veteran is. As peacekeeping veterans, we have earned that right by virtue of our casualties, honours, and service.

As I say, 50 years of campaigning for peace all over the world is a long time. One of the recommendations from this committee should be to ensure that this is clear.

We also sit on the advisory committee to Veterans Affairs. One of the things we pushed for was for them to understand these special duty areas and theatres of war so as to recognize our service because of the fact that we do go into war zones. We're there, and we've done everything. So those are our feelings on that. We've earned the right to be called veterans. It's about time we cut bait and did it.

Mr. George Proud: That's the reason I'm asking you this question. I have no problem with it personally. The reason I'm asking this question is to get your views on this. If we have to settle this with whoever the people are who will be taking it on, we want to have the—

Mr. Jim MacMillan-Murphy: It's unique within our own veterans community in Canada here. All veterans recognize us as that, and justifiably so. Regrettably, certain bureaucrats—

Mr. George Proud: I guess what is described as a veteran—

Mr. Jim MacMillan-Murphy: Exactly.

Mr. George Proud: —is a veteran of the First World War, Second War War, and Korea.

Mr. Jim MacMillan-Murphy: The word I was looking for was “discriminates”. This discriminates. A veteran is a veteran, whether or not the veteran is from the First World War, Second World War, or the Korean conflict, or whether they are peacekeeping veterans or Gulf War veterans. He's still a veteran. So we must stop that discrimination and just drop those—

Mr. George Proud: As you said, Jim, one of the major breakdowns has been with leaving the forces and getting on to the pension and the disability benefits of Veterans Affairs in terms of the status. That's something that has to be overcome. I think it's been worked through now, but the idea of the veteran status came up here not that long ago within the realm of this committee as we've been going across—

• 1215

I think this is something about which we have to have all of the necessary research, material and everything we need to make this recommendation. For most of these things, when you go to change something, as you know, it's not an easy sell. It's something I certainly will be making a recommendation on.

Another thing I certainly agree with that has happened over the last year—I said this in 1994 when we did the review of the defence policy—is that we cannot cut any more. In fact, if I had my way, for whatever it's worth, I'd like to see a larger budget for the defence department each year over a number of years until it gets to a place where they can do the things they have to do. They need more personnel as well as a real commitment from the Government of Canada.

Mr. Jim MacMillan-Murphy: You're absolutely right. That hits it right on the head.

It's sort of interesting. Once again, I'll refer back to that Maclean's magazine that showed the multi-tour vet. It's rather short service, but he's sort of being forced back like a mercenary. Sure the money is good because he goes overseas and gets his UN pay, but when he comes back, he's left open to PTSD, family break-ups, etc. We almost turn these guys into social time bombs waiting to blow up. I think if we had more people in the service, it wouldn't be that way. Also, there's the reference to funds and stuff like that.

Mr. George Proud: Mr. Keast, you've mentioned your work with the legion. You've got a lot of ongoing missions, so to speak. You're heading a conference in Charlottetown again on this post-traumatic stress. Do you feel, as a member of the legion, that the interface with Veterans Affairs for these specific people has improved in the last while?

Mr. R.E. Keast: I have personally processed cases for PTSD, and I have had good results. Certainly, as for all the adjudicators at the first level who make these decisions, the bulk of them were at that conference in 1996 when PTSD was one of the important topics. You could hear a pin drop in that room. There was good attention. There were good presenters. It's one of any of the kinds of disabilities you can get from serving, so we treat it as someone who needs help. One has a broken leg. One has a bad back. One has hearing loss. Someone has PTSD. We take them as they come.

The adjudicators have to rule on any kind of disability under the same statute. There are certain illnesses you have to prove in peacetime or in a special duty area. That's how I take it. We've had pretty good luck with first applications on a wide variety of disabilities since this pension reform in 1985.

Mr. George Proud: I'd just like to bring to your attention that I've done a lot of this myself. My constituency office is right across the street from Veterans Affairs in Charlottetown. We have had a lot of cases over the 10 years I've been in this job.

I'll just give you one instance. I think the idea is to just keep after it. You have to keep going. I had a gentleman call me. He was an older person. He had been in the reserves in the Second World War, a young man of 16. He fell off a truck. He had never done anything about it, and now this is nearly 50 years later. He asked me about how I could help him. I said that I doubted if there were anything we could do but we would try.

We took it and went through the whole process. On the first application, he got a pension and retroactive pay.

You can do those things. People in my office handle a lot of these cases. I think that with this committee on the road and all of these things happening and you people working actively in it, it's going to be less troublesome for a lot of people.

There was that case. It was a long time in happening, but the man deserved it and he got it. But if he hadn't come to ask for it, he wouldn't have got it. That's another situation, but I just wanted to share it, because I think these things are there.

Mr. John Gardam: One very last point from me, Mr. Chairman, is that if the statutes, the laws and so on, are very hazy over who is a veteran, then I think it's time we made it clear that veterans are people such as those in the First World War, the Second World War, the Korean War—not the Korean conflict, because sure as hell, they lost over 500 people there—and any peacekeeping mission authorized by the Government of Canada. They should be deemed to be veterans.

Thank you.

• 1220

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

We'll have a five-minute round, Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'd like to start with a bit of a follow-up question to Mr. Keast.

When you were talking about the conference where you were discussing PTSD, you said there was enough attention being paid you could hear a pin drop. What has happened other than these conferences? Has there been any serious exchange of medical personnel and expertise between Canada and the top centres in the United States that are dealing with this issue?

Mr. R.E. Keast: There is a branch of Veterans Affairs called the foreign countries operations branch, which is headquartered here in Ottawa. I understand they liaise with certain organizations like Veterans Affairs in the United States on these types of matters. Because of the treaties, they can treat veterans here, and the other countries treat our veterans, pensioners, in the other countries. I think that office liaises with the American VA in Vermont and in other areas.

I'm not sure if they were involved in helping to set up that speaker. My director helped arrange this conference, as did the assistant director at the service bureau. He's currently in Croatia at the worldwide conference. I understand from the notes that's the first such conference, so they could be breaking ground there with the 300 attendees. Hopefully he's going to bring back good stuff.

I understand there is a retired forces doctor now working with Veterans Affairs on the table of disabilities aspect and criteria, I think for the PTSD condition if not others. So there's a liaison there.

Of course, we don't have doctors on staff at the legion. We gather what information we can and try to maintain a currency and work with VAC, the appeal board, and DND as best we can, certainly as part of this extended family. So we're ready, willing and able to help all that we can within our mandate and our resources.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So you're not really aware of what has been going on within the forces in terms of really trying to deal with this problem?

Mr. R.E. Keast: They had a clinic. Colonel McLellan would certainly be better to address this than I would.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I know the clinic is there. I was wondering, from your perspective, whether this was being pursued as vigorously as it should be.

Mr. R.E. Keast: I'm not sure I can speak to that aspect. That would be better addressed to the forces.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay. I actually have one more line of questioning here—oh, I'm out of time.

Mr. Jim MacMillan-Murphy: The Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association has had a number of case studies put together in reference to this, and then passed it on to Colonel McLellan, stuff like that..

To be quite honest, judging from what we've been getting back from him and from what we've been able to give to him, he is working on a rather Canadian-made PTSD. Regrettably, the first thing you think of when you think of PTSD, right off the bat, is the Vietnam syndrome. This isn't the issue here for Canadian peacekeepers.

Our frustration and the atrocities and stuff that we see are different in a number of ways. Where they were able to fester out their frustration by carrying on a fire fight, Canadians are not allowed to carry into a fire fight unless they have direct orders or they come under attack. So there are a lot of unique Canadian issues that have to be looked into.

With what the legion has been doing and with what Colonel McLellan has been doing in reference to this, I think we're coming up with a real Canadian-made way of dealing with the PTSD issue that is going to be rather good. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it will be used as an example for other groups.

The British, of course, are talking a lot about PTSD issues they've been going through.

I recently was in contact with New Zealand veterns, and it's of course come back up again. Their mistake was that they wrote to their New Zealand Vietnam veterans, of course, trying to compare notes, and it just doesn't work. Basically we're dealing with the atrocities we're seeing there and with our guys coming back.

• 1225

We've been able to see in the veterans' movement that it's coming along pretty well, with the impetus going to the forces and of course what the legion's been doing, and what we've been doing with case studies.

It's interesting, what George brought up, that the legion and Veteran Affairs get together and stuff like that. It's pretty good that they do. Veterans Affairs has started to come to the veterans groups, to the legions, to the peacekeeping association, to the Korean vets and stuff like that. They've come to the stakeholders and asked us for our opinions on a number of things. So it's been able to come together pretty well.

Mr. R.E. Keast: Can I follow up on that, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: Sure.

Mr. R.E. Keast: About four months ago—I can't remember the exact date—the service officers where I work attended a meeting with the main players at DND's PTSD clinic. Colonel McLellan and his colleagues were there.

Speaking on behalf of the service officers, we found it informative to put faces to names as part of a team, a wide range of professionals, as a possible information and access centre we can use for clients who need our help.

So I think the relationship between the legion and other groups and DND—I can't speak for Veterans Affairs—is one where we're trying to work together to help our clients, not just for PTSD but also for any type of condition that comes in the door.

They certainly invited us to that meeting, and I found it quite helpful.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'm wondering why there's still so much frustration on the part of people who are suffering from this illness. That's what I don't understand. There's frustration, really deep-seated frustration, among people who are suffering, and their families. They don't feel anybody cares, quite frankly.

Mr. Jim MacMillan-Murphy: Getting the information out is basically the frustration. That's what we're hearing a lot from our guys when they come back. I get phone calls all the time whenever we get a return unit. That's what they talk about. I'm sure in the near future we'll have something out there that will be better, but the frustration is basically what they're speaking to.

It really wasn't too much in the forefront before. In 1992 I was able to put together an article on it, published in the legion, called, “In the Danger Zone”. Then all of a sudden all this stuff started clicking off, and we're just rediscovering the whole thing about it.

The way we used to handle it was that if you had a really bad experience, you went and got drunk, and you had to try to live with it. Regrettably, you become a social time bomb that way, because the flashbacks come back at you, and things will happen.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Pratt.

Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to be perfectly clear on this issue of the status of veterans. What you're after, it seems to me, if I'm understanding you correctly, is a change in policy, not necessarily a change in the statutes, because the Pension Act, I believe, does not make a reference to veterans, per se. Is that correct?

Mr. R.E. Keast: That's my understanding.

Mr. David Pratt: We did hear from the Minister of Veterans Affairs yesterday that any peacekeeper who was in a special duty area is treated the same way as a veteran of the First World War, the Second World War, or Korea. Is that your understanding as well?

Mr. R.E. Keast: If I may, under the Pension Act, the claims for disability or death go forward under two subsections, 21(1) or 21(2). Subsection 21(1) covers both world wars, Korea, and special duty areas. That's the insurance principle. You're covered 24 hours a day in theatre. If the symptoms show up or a diagnosis is first made then, or if there is an injury, then it's relatively easy to prove if you can show the client still has a current disability.

That's as opposed to subsection 21(2) claims back in Canada or Germany or the States or anywhere else in the world that's not a special duty area for today's soldiers. The onus is much different. You have to show that the disability “arose out of, or was directly connected with”. I don't believe there's a reference anywhere in the Pension Act to a report on injuries, either. They place so much emphasis on that: Well, there wasn't one, therefore, you know—

It's nice if you find one fully completed. That makes our job easier to prove. But there's no requirement in the Pension Act for credible, uncontradicted evidence, or whatever means you can raise, toward proving it arose out of or was directly connected with.

• 1230

The claims and special duty areas are covered under the insurance principle. The man or woman was there during the period, it was a special duty area, and the thing happened, or the symptoms started.

All we have to do is raise a doubt. It's an onus of proof that we go forward. And it's the same onus for special duty areas—Korea, World War I, World War II. The regular force is a different onus, where you have to relate it to service or organized sports.

Mr. David Pratt: But on the policy issue of being considered as veterans, the position of your organization, Mr. MacMillan-Murphy, is that regardless of whether a person was in a special duty area or not, they should all be considered as—

Mr. Jim MacMillan-Murphy: They are in special duty areas everywhere they go, but it's—

Mr. David Pratt: But there are some peacekeeping operations that have occurred that were not in special duty areas.

Mr. Jim MacMillan-Murphy: Maybe, but they are designated special duty areas.

Mr. David Pratt: Sorry?

Mr. Jim MacMillan-Murphy: They are designated as special duty areas. Which one would you be talking about, sir?

Mr. David Pratt: I understand from our researcher that there were some peacekeeping operations that were not in special duty areas.

Mr. George Proud: I'd like to try to clear up what he's asking.

Prior to the Gulf War, one of the things that came from the Gulf War was that there was a medal struck for the Gulf War veterans because it was a special area that was— Then do you remember the Korean fellows got the— So as I understand it, these special duty areas— When you were in Cyprus, that wasn't considered a special duty area then, was it?

Mr. Jim MacMillan-Murphy: It wasn't changed until 1994, sir—

Mr. George Proud: Yes.

Mr. Jim MacMillan-Murphy: —and then it was backdated. I should have brought the list in with me. I recently got one from Veterans Affairs, which lists all the special duty areas. I'm pretty sure all of them are covered.

Mr. George Proud: Now.

Mr. Jim MacMillan-Murphy: Now.

When they identify a special duty area, they identify the date from which it has been a special duty area. Cyprus has been a special duty area since 1964, when the first Canadians went in. But regrettably, some people are still confused when they come in and say “I was in Cyprus in 1967, and the special duty area legislation came out in 1994, so I guess I'm not covered”. That is just ignorance of the information that's out there. That can be cleared up with the veterans groups, and that's what we've been doing.

The bit about officially recognizing veterans, because it is recognized in black and white in dealing with World War I, World War II, Korea, and the Gulf War—

Mr. George Proud: And the Boer War.

Mr. Jim MacMillan-Murphy: And the Boer War, of course. As you've heard recently and as we're saying today, a recommendation should be that it should be clear-cut that peacekeeping veterans are recognized as veterans. That would make it simple for a large number of things: it would make it simple for the person who's filling out a claim; it would be simple for the person who thinks they have a claim so they can to to Veterans Affairs.

Once again, the perception's out there. If everybody thinks you're going off to Cyprus for a holiday, then they're fooled, just like I was fooled in 1974 when the island was invaded. It wasn't a holiday.

What we're saying, and you've heard it before, is that the designation of veteran should include Boer War, World War I, World War II, Korea, Gulf War, and international peacekeeping operations. That will cover the NATO ones who have gone through IFOR and SFOR, the guys who have done ICCS.

A voice: And Vietnam.

Mr. Jim MacMillan-Murphy: Those are the two I just mentioned, MFO.

So if the classification came out and said a veteran is someone who has served in the Boer War, World War I, World War II, Korea, the Gulf War, and international peacekeeping operations, that would make things so much simpler and that would alleviate a lot of the frustrations some of our guys feel. It would also help a lot with the perceptions from the people when we come back, knowing that we are veterans.

We had to fight for this right. When our association was first founded, the first couple of letters were saying “Thank you for your interest”. Well, we're not for our interest; we've been there. So this is basically what we are fighting for, recognition. It is important. The boys have earned the right: 50 years of keeping the peace; 109 dead Canadians; 103 Canadians badly wounded in Yugoslavia and 11 dead. The list goes on. The honours and awards—there's a story there that should be out on the historical minutes we have all the time.

We are justly proud of the Canadian peacekeeping effort. Lester Pearson got the Nobel Peace Prize in 1956. He would not have got it if the Canadians who went over didn't do their job, if General Burns didn't do his job. In 1988 we again brought the peace prize back to Canada for all our peacekeeping operations.

• 1235

Basically we're saying the time is right; let's just clear up that misconception and put it down in black and white.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Seeing that there are no more questions for the witnesses, I would like to thank you, Mr. Keast, Colonel Gardam, and Mr. MacMillan-Murphy, for your presentation this morning. Thank you very much. It's much appreciated.

The meeting is adjourned.