Veterans Affairs Committee on Oct. 30th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Good afternoon.

Yet again, we have our meeting of the veterans affairs committee. Today, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we have our study of the veterans affairs ombudsman.

We have witnesses before us today from the Korea Veterans Association of Canada: Mr. Les Peate, national president; and Gord Strathy, national secretary.

The way we generally work it, gentlemen, is that we open it up to allow about 20 minutes of commentary, or 10 minutes each if you like. After that, we rotate questions among us on a pre-determined seven-minute and five-minute rotation. That's for them to ask questions and see if you have anything else to add to your comments.

You gentlemen may begin if you like.

[Les Peate, National President, Korea Veterans Association of Canada]

First, I'd like to thank you very much indeed for giving us this opportunity to state our case before you. It's most appreciated, and we thank you.

I'm Les Peate, national president of the Korea Veterans Association of Canada. With me is our national secretary, Gord Strathy.

Korean War veterans have three major concerns. One concern is political; I realize this is not really the object of this committee. We hope that our sacrifices have not been in vain. Despite the recent sabre-rattling in North Korea, we hope that Canadian troops won't have to return to the land of the morning calm once again to repel an aggressor. Many people don't realize--I'm sure you all do--that there really is no peace in Korea. A war technically exists between north and south. This is actually a state of armed truce. In fact, over 1,000 U.S. soldiers have died since the ceasefire in 1953, plus many Canadians--mainly in accidents, I might add, rather than by enemy action. As I said, I realize that we're stepping out of veterans' concerns into the field of international politics, so I'll leave this right there.

Our second concern is remembrance. For 40 years, the Korean War was not recognized as a war. It was a conflict. It was a police action. And it was a United Nations operation. With three years of shooting and being shot at, and over 2,000 Canadians killed or wounded, we know that it was indeed a war. Many of our veterans are disappointed by the refusal of the Government House chancellery to permit the wearing of the Korean War medal. This medal was awarded by the President of South Korea, Sigmund Ree, to all troops who participated on the United Nations side in the Korean War. It was kept dark. When we did find out about it, about 30 years after the event, we tried to obtain the medal from Korea. They gave us approval to get them. We had to purchase them ourselves, because they stopped minting them. Then we went to Government House chancellery for permission to wear this medal as an approved foreign award. As you probably know, the wearing of a foreign decoration or award must be approved by the chancellery. This wasn't given.

The other concern we have are the battle honours. Any of you who have had much to do with an infantry battalion know that the battalion takes the most pride in their battle honours. They celebrate the day; they wear the battle honours on the colours. And for some reason--well, I know what the reason was--we fared badly. We would take part in battles with the British and Australians. The British and Australians would get a battle honour that they would carry proudly on their colours. For some reason, the Canadians were turned down. They were turned down by our own senior officers.

However, to get back to our primary concern, which is recognition of the health hazards encountered by our service personnel in Korea, I think it's safe to say that in this respect we were unique. On the one hand, a whole range of chemical defoliants and insecticides had been developed during the war, and we used them. On the dark side side of the coin, we were not yet aware of the lasting effects of these chemicals. We were young in those days. When you're a 19-year-old or a 20-year-old, as most of our people were, you don't really think of the future; you live for today. We felt that if anything happened to us, it wouldn't be because of our environment, and it wouldn't be because of what our friends were doing; it would be because of the enemy.

It wasn't until later years that we started finding that many of our comrades were dying early. Some of them had all sorts of ailments, ranging from arthritis to tuberculosis to cancer. You name it, they had it.

There seemed to be more of our people suffering. I was secretary at the time, and I carried out a survey. It was an informal survey, although I felt that we had a large enough sample. We found out that we did indeed have a higher rate of many illnesses than the corresponding age group of the general population. Some of them were significant.

Gord's going to tell you of one case of a veteran who was exposed to DDT. While he may have been susceptible to it, perhaps exceptionally so, nevertheless he is virtually a basket case. Nobody in Canada would have attributed it to the DDT he suffered in Korea. He finally had to go down to Texas and spend $10,000 of his own money—he had to mortgage his house—to go to a clinic because nobody in Canada could diagnose this. The ironic thing is that the doctor who diagnosed it as DDT-related was working in Texas but actually came from Nova Scotia.

This got us going. We tried corresponding with colleagues in the United Kingdom, Australia, and the U.S. We picked these countries because they have a similar lifestyle. We couldn't compare the after-war experience of a Canadian with an Ethiopian, a Colombian, or a Thai. We looked at people whose lifestyle was like ours, and the closest ones we found were the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom.

We met with Veterans Affairs and asked if they would conduct a survey. Although I was quite happy with ours, I felt that we should have an approved survey conducted by survey specialists. We discussed it in several meetings. But then you'd have a change of government, or we'd have a change of deputy minister, or you'd have people moving around. It never really got anywhere.

In the meantime I was talking to an Australian researcher, a Colonel Limburg, who had been working on this for many years. One of the things he produced was a list of approximately 125 toxic chemicals that the Australian troops were exposed to in Korea. In Korea, we were in the Commonwealth Division. We shared the same accommodations, the same conditions. Sometimes the Canadian rations were a bit better than the British rations, but apart from that everything was the same. What is true about Australians in Korea would basically be true for Canadians, British, and the rest of the Commonwealth troops.

We found 100 toxic chemicals and 20 endemic diseases. One of the diseases is particularly virulent—we call it the Manchurian bug. It was a hemorrhagic fever with a 41% fatality rate. Besides the chemical threat, we had other things to contend with such as extremes of climate, excessive rainfall, rats, and lice. One of the most important factors is that we lived in holes in the ground, which we dug. This ground in Korea had been fertilized for centuries with human waste. All in all, it was not a healthy situation.

I have appended the list of this report. I'm sure you don't want me to read out a list of 125 chemicals and 20 diseases. But they will be available—I have passed them to be reproduced. I'll be glad to answer any questions on them later.

Then we had a breakthrough. The Australian Department of Veterans' Affairs did three studies, and they produced three excellent reports. One of them was a mortality study. They compared the mortality rate of their Korean veterans from various causes with the mortality rate of males of the same age in the general population. The second one was a cancer incidence study. The third one was a health study, in which they compared the ailments and disabilities of Korean veterans with those of the general public. The differences were very significant. I can give you those on request. I have the Australian study here. I won't take up your time right now by reading them, but I'll answer specific questions.

To give our Department of Veterans Affairs credit, many of their findings were accepted right away. They said fine, they didn't waste any time on further studies, they accepted what the Australians had done.

Gord and I worked very closely with a Dr. David Pedlar, who did the research for Veterans Affairs in Charlottetown, and thanks to their work, they accepted Korea as a prima facie cause of eight conditions of cancer. Maybe that's not a lot, but in round figures that means 500 Korean War veterans who are suffering from cancer are now receiving pensions. Without the necessity to prove it was caused by the Korean service, the onus would be on Veterans Affairs to prove that it wasn't. If you served in Korea and have any of these eight forms of cancer, this would be pensionable. This, we felt, was a great step forward. However, cancer is only one of the problems we have.

Dr. Pedlar's team is continuing to examine the other reports, and they will be following them up, possibly with studies of our Canadian Korea veterans. Many ailments, such as respiratory and nervous system ailments, heart ailments, dermatological ailments, and many other disorders, can be attributed to DDT and the many other chemicals we had.

One of the surprising things that came up was that we didn't have very many claims, or not as many claims as we expected, for post-traumatic stress disorder. We explain this as a generational thing. Now the tendency is to say, “Oh gee, I've got a headache, I'm going to apply for a pension”. In our day you were almost ashamed to admit you were suffering from the effects of the horrifying experience you'd had, so our people have not been as forward in applying for this as they should be. There is probably quite a lot of entitlement out there. We have to educate our people to not be ashamed of it. It's nothing to be ashamed of; it's just another injury. But there is this generational thing, as I said. Many people are concerned.

I wrote an article that was published in Esprit de Corps magazine. A few copies have been distributed--

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Mr. Peate, bear with me for one second. I just wanted to let you know you just passed half time. I don't know if you gentlemen are splitting time, or if Mr. Peate will be doing the entire presentation--

[Les Peate]

I'm sorry...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

You've just past half time. You're at about 11 minutes, so you have another nine. I'm just letting you know in case you want to split time. Carry on.

[Les Peate]

Okay. I have this much left, so I'll be short.

I happened to do an article on this particular problem, which is in Esprit de Corps magazine, and I was able to grab about a dozen copies, which I've circulated. I'm not plugging the mag, although I write for it, but it is perhaps a more readable and faster way of getting the story.

Finally, I'd like to mention that I wear another hat, and I'll be very brief with this. I'm vice-chairman of the National Council of Veteran Associations in Canada. I understand that Cliff Chadderton was here a few weeks ago, and he expressed most of our concerns. My mother had a saying, “Don't boil your cabbages twice.” In other words, I think he probably stated our case very well.

I would say, though, that we do very much support the initiatives of NCVAC, of which we are one of the 55 member units. We endorse most of them, in particular the need for a veterans affairs ombudsman, the concern over marriages after age 60, and also the extension of the veterans independence program to widows. This was supposed to be happening. It hasn't.

I would like to thank you for this opportunity to express our concerns, and I'll now hand you over to our national secretary, if I may.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Of course. I just wanted to let you know you're up at about 13 minutes, so you have seven or so, Mr. Strathy.

There weren't many comments directly attributed to the debate we're having on the ombudsman, but I'm allowing you gentlemen some latitude with regard to that, so carry on.

[Gord Strathy, National Secretary, Korea Veterans Association of Canada]

All right.

I spent my time in Korea with the Royal Canadian Engineers. I suppose because of my age, being 18, I was just another gung-ho young soldier. Much of what I know now never crossed my mind. It probably should have, but.... Shortly after my return to Canada I re-mustered to the Royal Canadian Medical Corps, and I became a preventive medicine technician. I must admit I did start to wonder about some of the things that happened to me and my buddies.

Safety precautions as we know them today were non-existent. There wasn't much in the way of protective clothing, respirators, or ear defenders. In my fifteen-plus years in the medical corps, I soon learned about many things that we should have had, and many things that we should have avoided. That was over 50 years ago. We sprayed or dusted our clothing with what we know now to be very toxic substances, DDT and Lindane. Needless to say, both of these items are carcinogenic, but we just sprayed our clothing in good faith because it was going to help us.

Nowadays the environmentalists would say to us that we shouldn't even be touching that stuff without protective clothing. And if you look at what it did to the bird population in North America, and you translate that to humans, it was quite bad. It got so bad that stringent rules of the environmentalists have pretty well done away with the use of DDT and Lindane in North America, and in a lot of other countries as well. I'd be very remiss if I were not to say that there were lots of other chemicals that were in use. Much of the petroleum, oil, and lubricants--and these were simply the things that you used to keep your vehicles on the road--were used rather indiscriminately as well. The full list of toxic chemicals that one might come into contact with in Korea was indeed long.

If you've heard of a dangerous chemical, quite likely it was in Korea back in the fifties. Even some of the medications used have been found to be harmful. Paludrine was an antimalarial drug of the era. The side effects are wide-ranging. Today it is considered to be about 60% effective. Most people had a daily dose. What harm did it do? Really only a very well-trained physician dealing with numerous malarial patients can adequately answer that question. Canada has very few such physicians. Even the lowly salt pill was found to be dangerous to some.

For many years we've been trying to get some real answers about the effects of these chemicals, but generally to no avail. One of our members suggested for years that he suffered from the adverse effects of chemical poisoning. He had numerous conditions, and he felt they were directly linked to the chemicals. As Les pointed out a moment ago, eventually he took his $10,000, went to Texas, and had a bank of tests performed on him. The tests verified that what he thought was really the truth. I personally feel this was not just an isolated incident. This was one person, but there probably were others. A lot of people have died. Did they die from these chemical poisonings? A lot of people die and no one ever finds out the real reason why. It could be said that above all else, Korea was not a terribly healthy place to serve as a serviceman.

I've been actively involved in this file for eight years. I have listened to a lot of stories and heard of many conditions. When people know that you are meeting with VAC or have met with VAC, they often want their case reviewed. I believe we have a good working relationship with VAC. Progress is being made, but sometimes it's a bit too slow.

The adoption of the Australian studies has been a giant step forward. For years we tried to have a similar Canadian study conducted, but to no avail. These three studies present many of the same facts that would likely have been brought forth in a Canadian study. If we accept the studies at face value, we must surely conclude that veterans of the Korean war were much more likely to have contracted many diseases than the average Canadian civilian, or even servicemen in other theatres. Cancer rates are very high; the overall death rate is too high.

In the Australian studies it was found that soldiers represented the greatest proportion of the deadly conditions, the navy a slightly lower proportion, and the air force lower still. It is felt that Canadians likely parallel the Australians, since most of our troops served in the same areas and ate the same sort of food under basically the same conditions.

Many Canadian servicemen feel frustrated by the whole pension process. In the area of appeals, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board is an ongoing concern. Many feel that the board members are not knowledgeable enough about the diseases and Korea, as it was 50 years ago.

Once again, on behalf of my fellow Korean War comrades, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to address you this afternoon.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Thank you very much, gentlemen. You were only 22 seconds over. That was well done.

I hope that our colleagues in their questions will be able to glean more from you on your views on the ombudsman and how that should be structured. I appreciated your presentation, filling us in on your experience in Korea and the fallout from that. I hope we will find out more about what Mr. Chadderton had to say about the ombudsman.

Mr. Cuzner.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

I'd like to thank both of you for being here at committee, and for your presentations.

I just want to take a minute to thank the researcher for the work that has been done in preparation for these meetings. I think he's been doing an excellent job putting packages together and referencing past meetings. Just a little tip of the hat--and I know the entire committee would share in that as well.

Mr. Strathy, you were referring to Mr. Cotter, the gentleman who took his case to the United States. That was gleaned from past testimony, as he appeared here in 2004. Could you give us the Reader's Digest version of his story and your perspective on how you feel the development of an ombudsman office would have helped his particular case?

[Gord Strathy]

I met Mr. Cotter half a dozen years ago in North Bay. He had about three different kinds of cancer at that time. They'd just removed all his lymph nodes. They'd done this, that, and the next thing and he still had two or three other.... He was sitting in a wheelchair and was pretty much out of it. He also had a lot of respiratory problems. So you just took a look at a human being who used to be a whole person, and he was in about as poor shape as you could be and still be alive.

If we'd had someone like an ombudsman to put forth his case--definitely, because he just seemed to be up against a brick wall. No matter how many medically proven problems he had, nobody said, “You can attribute those to the use of DDT in Korea.”

I mentioned Lindane, and for those of you who don't know, it is far more toxic than DDT. He would have been subjected to both of those chemicals in his daily life.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

At the end, when he was finally refused, did your association put forward a position to Veterans Affairs with regard to Mr. Cotter's case and the fact that you believe his case didn't go through due process or didn't get a fair hearing? Has your association made a representation on behalf of one of your members?

[Gord Strathy]

I think, in truth, his case was handled like a lot of other cases at that particular time. We had lots of cases that were not adequately handled.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

His case would have gone on...from what period of time to what period of time?

[Gord Strathy]

It had gone for 10 to 12 years prior to anything being resolved. If you look for other people who've gone 10 and 12 years, I could find you numerous ones, so he would not be unique in that respect. But I think the unique part with him was the fact that any one of you looking at a man with that many ailments might be saying that surely, one of them must have come from Korea.

[Les Peate]

I'd like to mention this, because at the time Mr. Cotter first brought his case, I was secretary and I dealt with it personally. I might add that it wasn't just the KVA. We got the National Council of Veterans Associations involved, for instance, Brian Forbes, who I'm sure you've met with. The Legion was involved. We brought him down for a meeting with Veterans Affairs in Ottawa. One of the problems was that they simply didn't recognize it, they couldn't recognize it, and they found out that we had no one in Canada who could recognize it. This is why he was forced to go down to Texas. Then, they didn't want to believe it.

I might add that Mr. Cotter's son was very active in pushing this too, and as you may have known if you're from North Bay, it frequently occurred in the media. I think it was just a matter of pressure and pressure and pressure that did it.

If we'd had an ombudsman who could have nipped that in the bud before he even had to go down to Texas, I'm sure that.... He's receiving satisfaction. I believe he's getting 100% pension now. But on the other hand, I'm sure he would have got it many years earlier if it wasn't for the fact that it was simply, unfortunately, “We can't prove it; therefore, we won't pay it.”

This is why I'm so pleased with this cancer decision they made, which is almost the reverse. If you were in Korea and you have cancer, they will assume that's where you got it. This is what they should have done years ago.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Okay, with regard to the actual function of the office, what I've got from your testimony is that for the most part you are in concert with the legion and with the other veterans' associations with how this ombudsman position should roll out and the responsibilities that they should be--

[Gord Strathy]

One thing I would say in relation to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board is it would be an ideal opportunity for an ombudsman to work there. Because perception is reality. If you believe that the people who are there listening to your case are not qualified remotely, then that's probably the case.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

You have to understand, we carefully splice exactly how many minutes everybody gets in this committee, because if you don't, it turns into a zoo. Mr. Cuzner is already over seven minutes, so you're going to finish your response, and then it's going to pass over to Mr. Perron.

That's what I'm doing. That why I get paid the bucks around here.

All right, Monsieur Perron.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Gentlemen, I am quite happy to meet you and I want to thank you for being here. Unfortunately, I think that we have missed the boat.

I may seem heartless, but I am aware of the problems that the people who took part in the Korean War have suffered. I think of Agent Orange or Agent Purple in Gagetown, I think of our youth who are struck with PTSS, or post-traumatic stress syndrome. I think also of the lack of recognition for our young men and women who were in the Golf War.

We are here to discuss an ombudsman. Let me give you my definition of what an ombudsman should be. Tell me whether you believe that the holder of such an office could have done or could do something to help you and support you in your claims. For me, an ombudsman is a man who is independent, who is appointed, who reports to the House and whose mandate is to protect people, to redress mistakes or unfair decisions made toward persons, at the individual or collective level. He contributes to strengthening democracy and the rule of law, as well as improving the services delivered to citizens.

Would such a person be useful to you?

[Les Peate]

I am sorry, but my knowledge of the French language is limited. I followed a French course at the Citadelle, 40 years ago, but I have forgotten almost all that I had learned.

To go back to English, yes, there is no doubt about it. The case you've just heard is an example where an ombudsman, somebody who isn't strictly bound by rules and regulations--and more importantly, is completely independent--is absolutely essential.

Independence is most important. Also, my friend has mentioned the matter of perception. Yes, there's an old saying that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be imparted, and it's the same thing. The ombudsman's impartiality must be shown.

With the defence department ombudsman, it's a pity his term was short-lived, and I don't know how his successor is doing, but yes, this is one of the cases where it would happen. Sometimes we have laws and we have also what is right and what isn't right. Sometimes the regulations.... I believe it was Charles Dickens who said “the law is an ass”. I wouldn't say that, but nevertheless, there are some things in the regulations where perhaps some discerning person should say this is not right; this is not fair to this person. Therefore, an independent ombudsman, yes, we're for it 100%.

Thank you, sir.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

I gave you my definition. Now let us give him something to do. He can make inquiries. I completely agree with you: he must be loyal, impartial and neutral. He must report to Parliament. We had a problem with the Canadian Forces ombudsman because he reported to the Minister responsible for the Canadian Forces. You do not bite the hand that feeds you. That detracts from his impartiality. If he were to report directly to the House of Commons, I believe that it would change a lot of things. Anyway, Mr. Marin lost his job because he was being too harsh with the department.

As I was saying, it gives him the right to make inquiries, to request people to appear before him as witnesses, etc. Did you anticipate giving all these rights or even more rights to the ombudsman?

[Les Peate]

No, I think you've stated the case very well. Yes, the ombudsman should definitely be able to conduct investigations. I think they should report to Parliament and not to any particular department. If they report to a department, there may be the understanding....

We're supposed to have a Veterans Review and Appeal Board, which is supposed to be independent. You ask any veteran, especially if his appeal has been turned down, and he'll say, “All these guys work for Veterans Affairs, and they don't want to pay us—that's it”. So the independence is important. They should be seen as independent. They should have the right to call witnesses and, if necessary, do inquiries and make changes. That's the only way you're going to get confidence.

I would like to mention the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, because this is the same sort of thing. At one time an appointment to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board was a political reward, a Privy Council position. If you were a good party worker, it made no difference whether you knew anything about veterans, whether you knew the difference between a bunker and a Bren gun.

I understand these positions are now being filled by competition. But I would say that I'm still disappointed. The new appointees, I still haven't seen one of them with any military service. This is part of the problem. They do not understand our language. Our veterans' world is different. If I told you I lived in a hoochie, it probably wouldn't mean anything to you. To a veteran it would mean that I lived in one of those holes in the ground.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you for your honesty in saying what you think.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Mr. Stoffer.