Veterans Affairs Committee on Oct. 30th, 2006

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Gentlemen, thank you very much for coming before us today.

Just out of curiosity, how many Korean War veterans are still alive?

[Les Peate]

At last count we had about 15,000. Many of them have passed away. Of the 27,000 Canadians who served in Korea, I would say 13,000 or 14,000 are still alive.

Gord, perhaps you can answer that one.

[Gord Strathy]

Yes, that's pretty close—about 13,000.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

That Australian report you referred to, when did our DVA accept it?

[Les Peate]

Two years ago. It's a very interesting report. There's too much in it for me to bring in here, but I have a copy with me, which I would be pleased to show you afterwards. It's a fairly exhaustive report. To give Veterans Affairs their credit, once we brought this to their attention, they got in touch with the Australians, got more copies, and started working on it right away.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

It is quite similar how you've addressed this concern about the various agents you've worked with—DDT and others. Years later people develop serious forms of cancer. This report indicates that the onus of proof is now on DVA and not necessarily on the individual.

A few years ago at a committee we talked to people who were affected by depleted uranium. The government's position was that depleted uranium was not cancerous. Yet European studies have indicated that it may cause cancer. Some of our veterans from the first Gulf War were coming back with the same arguments that Mr. Cotter made.

It's also quite ironic that the folks in Gagetown with Agent Orange are making the same types of arguments. Of course, we hear “Most of you guys in Korea were smokers, so if you smoked for 40 years, was the lung cancer caused by your smoking or was it caused by the chemicals you interacted with?” I like the DVA's willingness to accept the report and put the onus on the government. That's very important.

You mentioned the law on marriage after 60. An ombudsman doesn't have legislative authority over government. He can't tell the government it must do something. He can only make recommendations to the government. I am playing the devil's advocate. Do you not feel that the ombudsman may be another level of bureaucracy, not unlike the Veterans Review and Appeal Board?

[Les Peate]

I would hope it wouldn't be. Rather than go into generalities, I would like to suggest that if there had been an ombudsman for James Cotter, he would have received his pension and the necessary treatment many years before he did.

I'm a former federal servant myself. Bureaucracies sometimes tend to be slow, and if they're not sure what to do, they delay and delay and delay. I think in this case an ombudsman should have the authority, if necessary and within reason, to say, “Fine, these are the regulations, but this is an exceptional case, and this is my recommendation.” This has happened, if I remember correctly, with an air force person.

With regard to people in the other wars you mentioned, and the Agent Orange in the gulf, one of my very good friends is a lady by the name of Louise Richards. If you haven't met her, I'm sure you will. She will tell you about depleted uranium, believe you me.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Thank you, sir.

As my last question, you indicated that it took a long time for this to be recognized as a war. For years it was called a “police action”, I believe, through the United Nations. I notice our government now has yet to declare the Afghan situation a war, and yet I believe the soldiers who are over there--we met some of them the other day--are in some pretty serious conflicts over there. They are in some serious battles. The media and some of us call it a war, but they don't.

In your own opinion, looking at the Afghan situation as you know it now, and at what our troops are going through, our men and women, would you consider their actions just as obviously notable as yours--of course, these are different times--and consider this to be, in your view, a war?

[Gord Strathy]

One thing you have to think about is the fact that 40 people have been killed there, while in Korea, almost that many people were lost by 3 Battalion RCR in one evening. This is not a declared war. That one was.

You can call it a police action. You can call it a United Nations operation. You can call it anything you want, but it was a war, and it was declared a war by the government. Afghanistan, to the best of my knowledge, has not been declared a war by the government.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

But at the time, Korea was not.

[Gord Strathy]

Well, it was called--

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Mr. Stoffer, your time is up.

Mr. Shipley, seven minutes.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Peate and Mr. Strathy, for coming out. It's great to have representatives come from the Korean War to talk to us, particularly about the ombudsman, a scenario we're pursuing. Actually, we're just talking to people and wanting to know, as much as anything, not if, but what is the best way.

I listened with some interest to some of the comments made earlier about Mr. Cotter not being able to get it verified. Was it an issue that it could have been verified here, was it that the expertise wasn't here, or was it that we didn't want to admit it? Secondly, if that expertise wasn't here to determine these types of diagnosis, are they here now, to the best of your knowledge?

[Gord Strathy]

The truth of the matter is that it probably still could not be verified in Canada. I think we have only one medical specialist who is qualified, to the best of my knowledge, out of Toronto to deal with that kind of thing.

So the answer would be no. At the time, somebody had to pay for him to go to the States.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Okay.

I have another question on the ombudsman position. Could you tell us what you think that position should be? Could you help us with some clarification of what the ombudsman should do?

[Les Peate]

First of all, the Department of Veterans Affairs does have an appeal process. If a veteran has exhausted the appeal process, right now all he can do is go to the Supreme Court. This is the sort of thing that a veteran is not willing to do. There is the expense, the trouble, and that sort of thing. I think this is one case, for instance, where an ombudsman can step in. I realize we can't change the law, but we can change regulations. From my days as a bureaucrat, I believe that a minister or a department does have the authority to change regulations. I know, for instance, mine were constantly being changed when I was with the Department of Employment and Immigration.

This is one thing that the ombudsman probably could do. There are changing situations. For instance, let's talk about chemicals, if I may, briefly. Back in the 1950s, we didn't realize what DDT was like. I now have some stuff from DuPont, amongst other things, and now we know what DDT is like. We can change our regulations; we can change our instructions to our adjudication officers in the Department of Veterans Affairs, to allow for this. We're constantly discovering new perils and all that sort of thing. Depleted uranium and Agent Orange are other examples. All these things can be taken into consideration. This may be where the ombudsman comes in. If there is something that is obviously a threat and that is not yet being covered or compensated for or treated, perhaps one of his jobs could be to ensure that this is done.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

A large concern is the backlog of appeals to the Department of Veterans Affairs. One of you, I believe it was Mr. Strathy, brought up the issue of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board and that it's not neutral. In fact, I think you got to the point that a few of them, those not having military or medical expertise, had not necessarily qualified because it became a bit of a patronage appointment.

If that board was structured differently so those issues could be better addressed.... Obviously there would likely be some link then to the ombudsman. The idea is not to have an ombudsman and make that person busier; the idea is to have an ombudsman who would come alongside when things really fall off the rails--not that they fall off the rails on a regular basis. Do you have any comments to that? I'm interested to hear.

[Les Peate]

I realize the ombudsman would only be one person, although he or she would obviously have an office, and they could handle anything. But if, for instance, there is a case where the VRAB is unable to come to a consensus, that is one example. The other thing, too, I would point out as far as the appeals are concerned is this. There are two or maybe three reasons why a person can get a pension. One, communication is a two-way street. Unfortunately, the veteran describes some military terms. I mentioned I lived in a hoochie. He thinks the VRAB people know what he's talking about; they don't. There's a bit of it on both sides. In some cases, the veteran doesn't go into enough detail, assuming that the person who's listening to his appeal knows what he's talking about.

I used to work for the Department of Employment and Immigration. I had a number of immigrants who would come to me. They wondered why they weren't getting their benefits. Somebody would respond in an official language, and they were still no wiser afterwards. This is a two-way street. These are the things, hopefully, that the ombudsman could pick up.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Do you see the ombudsman as the person being able to deal with groups that would come together with an issue, or represent individuals going to appeal boards in those types of situations?

[Les Peate]

I'd love to represent KVA before an ombudsman.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Thank you.

All right, now back to Mr. Valley for five minutes.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, gentlemen, for coming today.

I was amazed, although I had known and had forgotten about the Korean War, that they refused to call it a war and it's kept that recognition. It's amazing we can do that and be so short-sighted sometimes.

Mr. Peate, you mentioned the Australian studies and the three studies they did, all quality work. We accepted part of it. You mentioned that we now recognize eight cancers. If a Korean vet has it, it's automatically assumed he got it in Korea. What happened as a result of the other studies? And why did we just pick one instead of using all their information? We found value in what they were doing in providing service to the vets, so why didn't we take it further?

[Gord Strathy]

We are going to take it further.

The three studies came out at different times. First there was the cancer study, then a mortality study, and then a general health study. Each of these dovetails into the other one.

We've accepted the cancers and we now have eight cancers being taken care of. We get into the mortality study: it's taking a lot of things, respiratory diseases and so forth, and lumping them together. So you'll be able to put a handle on them, yes, that likely happened in Korea. But that will be from the next study.

The cancer study dealt primarily with cancer, the mortality study deals with mortality in general, and the last study deals with the Australian population and us in relation to it.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

You mentioned the decision was made by Veterans Affairs two years ago to honour the cancer part.