Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 6th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Thank you very much, committee members.

This is yet another meeting of our Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. There are some stragglers walking in the door. Timing is good.

We're still doing our study on a veterans ombudsman. Today we have Colonel Don Ethell, retired, a liaison officer with the Canadian Association of Veterans in United Nations Peacekeeping before us.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

May we know the name of our clerk?

[Chad Mariage, Procedural Clerk]

My name is Chad Mariage. Usually, I am the Clerk of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. I am replacing Alexandre for this meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Okay, fair enough. I should have introduced our friend Chad. We had knowledge he would be standing in and sitting in for Alexandre.

I generally work it so that our witnesses have about ten or twenty minutes. We'll let you go for twenty minutes. You can have it all combined, sir, and then after that we open up to questions from the floor from the members.

Mr. Ethell, away you go. The floor is yours.

[Col Don Ethell, Liaison Officer, Canadian Association of Veterans in United Nations Peacekeeping, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members.

It is indeed an honour to appear before this committee. In fact, as I indicated to a couple of members, I've been out of Canada for the last three weeks. I was caught short last week when I finally heard that I was on for November 6, which is coincidental with our activity in the Senate chamber this morning and the release of the Gerontological Advisory Council report to Veterans Affairs at the press conference at 12:30. Notwithstanding that, it is indeed an honour.

The notice of meeting I received is, I guess, a draft because it states, unlike yours, “Liaison Officer, Veterans Affairs Canada”. I don't work for Veterans Affairs Canada. I'm a liaison officer for my organization, CAVUNP, as it's known in acronym, and our national president is with us.

To establish a few other credentials, at the risk of sounding a little self-serving, I, as the liaison officer and the past president, and representatives from the other five veterans associations—the National Council of Veterans Associations, the Legion, the ANAVETS, the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association, the Gulf War Veterans Association, and our organization—worked very closely, in that we were all members of the Veterans Affairs Canada-Canadian Forces Advisory Council, which was established over five years ago.

On this committee of twenty there were academics, members from other departments, and the veterans organizations. Our mandate was to look at the possibility of a new charter with respect to the modern-day veteran, recognizing that the “traditional veterans”—World War I, World War II, and Korean—were covered by the Veterans Charter, eleven acts, which you know more about than I do. Those of us who have served, exclusive of Korea, since the Second World War were really not entitled to medical benefits.

To make a long story short, as you are aware, after our deliberations finished—and a lot of consultations, meetings, committee meetings, visits to the bases, talking to the troops, and so forth—with the consent of DND and VAC, it evolved, with the report being written by our chair, Dr. Peter Neary, and submitted to Veterans Affairs Canada. That formed the basis for Veterans Affairs to draft the legislation and prepare it to move it forward.

We didn't go out of business. When I say we didn't go out of business, I mean the veterans associations didn't go out of business, because the arrangement with Veterans Affairs Canada was that we would continue bilateral and multilateral meetings looking at the draft legislation—I understand there's confidentiality associated with it—about how we were going to approach this problem or that problem. This was looking forward to the window of opportunity—I'm not a politician, obviously—to put it before the House and pass it.

As you know, it was passed in April of last year. The regulatory changes by Veterans Affairs then carried on, working towards a launch date of April 1 this year; it happened on April 3. Throughout the winter a tremendous amount of work went on by many officials at Veterans Affairs, and the bilateral and multilateral consultations continued. Quite frankly, it was amazing to see the six associations come together and support this most important piece of legislation with respect to veterans in the last fifty years.

Are there holes in it? Yes. Are the issues being addressed? Yes.

We knew going in that there were a number of things we would like to see in the new Veterans Charter—lump sum payments, long-term care, and so forth—but we had to keep our powder dry, recognizing there are only so many things they could do with the reality of many things, not the least of which is finances, which we didn't get into. That's VAC and a political problem.

The point I'm making is that we've been involved in this process, and it became apparent during that timeframe that the subject of an ombudsman and the subject of a veterans bill of rights had come up. As a result of the election, as you know better than I, the Prime Minister indicated that these were two priorities. The multilaterals we've had have in part included some discussion on terms of reference for the ombudsman—our thoughts and opinions only—and input as to what should be in the veterans bill of rights.

Just to go back to other activities, I did miss one important thing that we do. I'm a volunteer chair for a joint Department of National Defence and Veterans Affairs Operational Stress Injury Social Support Advisory Committee of about twenty people--including many from DND and VAC obviously--that looks at providing advice and counsel to the two co-managers from DND and VAC, the co-managers of what they call the OSISS program, which is a program of individuals who are suffering from OSI--PTSDs in particular--to get them channeled into the right facility. We can't call them counsellors. We call them peer support coordinators. At present there are sixteen of them spread across the country. There are also another six family peer support coordinators.

All of them are sufferers and are monitored very closely, so when Bloggins or Smith doesn't want to really go to the clinic, be it at the VAC or on an armed forces base, they can talk to these individuals. To be absolutely frank, most of their meetings are held in places like Tim Hortons, and they provide advice about where to go and receive help.

I mention that because, as you know, we have had many people throughout the years--let alone in Afghanistan--who have seen some terrible things and who suffer mentally. It's cumulative--depending on the number of tours, the Beirut Road in southern Lebanon, Cypress, Congo, Balkans, and now Afghanistan. I'm not a doctor, but I've seen it and experienced it personally; it will eventually catch up to you.

Now there are the casualties of Afghanistan, not only the families of those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice, but the many wounded--over 200 who are wounded, and the families. I keep emphasizing “and the family”. There's a major problem coming there now, and it's going to get even bigger because it may take two or three years to come out.

I mention that specifically because when the new Veterans Charter was drafted, it was noted, but to be quite frank, if we knew--we being the associations, and I'm sure VAC would consent to that--that Afghanistan was going to come into the fore and we were going to suffer the terrible casualties that we have, it would have possibly changed something within the Veterans Charter. I can't get into specifics other than that it would have been a sobering process to try to make sure everybody was taken care of.

I'm not denigrating those who were suffering before Afghanistan, because I can give you many examples of people who have had their legs blown off and so forth in Lebanon and the Balkans and suffer just as much as the people who are getting wounded in Afghanistan. I just wanted to mention that. The bilaterals and multilaterals continue to this day.

Regarding the ombudsman and the bill of rights, we were advised by Veterans Affairs, when all six veterans associations had a multilateral meeting, that we would be involved in the process, and we were initially, though we haven't had much input lately. I really don't know the reason for that. We had hoped, and a number of us were saying, “Gee, it would sure be great if it would be announced in Remembrance Week”, i.e. this week. That apparently is not going to happen because there are some other aspects that I don't know about.

We have an idea about some of the terms of reference for the ombudsman, which I'm prepared to share with you, in an hour or as we get into the question period, and some other points, and for that matter the bill of right. Others in this room probably know better than I whether it's going to be a regulatory change--in other words, whether the minister is going to sign off on that--or it's going to go through Parliament and become a legislative change, which means the lawyers get involved and others get involved. It's going to be a longer process and probably, in my opinion, produce a very complex document, which isn't going to do much for the veteran walking through the door of a VAC office and looking at something that's sixteen pages long instead of six or seven bullets long. But that's only a personal opinion.

Mr. Chairman, did you wish me to get into my thoughts on the ombudsman or—?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Very much so.

We had an interesting conversation at the last committee meeting on that very subject, so our researcher prepared a series of kind of bullet points, as you've described them, referring to the appointment process, their accountability, their term of office, their mandate, their funding, etc.

Do you have a copy of that, sir?

[Col Don Ethell]

No. I have my own notes and the notice of meeting. Nothing else. I have a clean sheet.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Perhaps we can make sure that Colonel Ethell is provided with a copy of that.

Yes, your thoughts on the structure of the ombudsman would be very valuable to us. I think if you look through that series of questions--and you may want to consider them as you speak--that should give us lots of information. If you wish, you can free-associate off the top of your head as well as.... It's as you wish.

[Col Don Ethell]

Okay. Thank you for that. It would have made it a little easier if I'd had them last night, but that's all right. I've got a clean piece of paper here.

Remember, these are my personal opinions only.

The ombudsman should report to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. He or she should be authorized to provide a confidential, unbiased, and neutral alternative to the existing redress system of VAC for both the veterans and their families. The ombudsman should obviously be neutral and unbiased and have a great degree of integrity and honesty. He or she should be an alternative to the existing VAC chain of command.

Using the research facilities of Veterans Affairs and other departments, the investigators assigned to the ombudsman's office should work on a specific time line and in accordance with a specific directive issued by the ombudsman. I'll come back to the investigators, because he or she cannot do it all at once and needs a team to do it.

A decision will have to be made about whether the ombudsman is going to look at just systemic changes or problems within the department, or individual cases. As you can appreciate, the individual cases are going to be very important to the individual cases that the DND ombudsman has looked at over the years.

The ombudsman should be responsive to complaints from veterans and their families. I looked at the word “complaints” and I much prefer “issues”.

The actions of the ombudsman should complement the existing systems and procedures in place for the veterans, remembering that the Veterans Review and Appeal Board is also a redress system. I doubt very much that the ombudsman would be in a position to criticize or comment on their decisions because that's almost a judicial system. However, I'm sure there may be some symptomatic things that the ombudsman could look at. So in my simple mind there's a problem between the ombudsman and the VRAB in regard to authorities.

On administrative points, the ombudsman should serve at the pleasure of the minister. All actions of the ombudsman's office should be classified confidential. The investigator's reports should be staffed or vetted through a divisional manager, depending on the structure--one for systemic complaints and one for individual complaints, if we're going to go that way--prior to submission to the ombudsman.

Specific terms of reference--that's an army term and I don't know whether it's used in Parliament or not--for the ombudsman, the directors, and the investigators should be drafted and approved.

Regular status reports should be prepared for the ombudsman, and routine or on-call reports should be provided to the ombudsman for the minister at his pleasure. I recommend that he or she report to the minister.

In addition to the selection of the right individual for the ombudsman, one of the key elements of success is the selection of the team of investigators, as you can appreciate, based on the DND ombudsman. They should preferably have a background of analytical thought and possible investigation--like my friend here, ex-Provost Corps, ex-OPP policeman. They should be neutral, understand they are not advocates, and be dedicated self-starters. They should have the necessary staff training, experience, and skills to operate within the federal government system, specifically the ombudsman's office. They should be prepared to undergo the appropriate training on the organization of programs available to both the traditional and modern-day veteran.

I'll digress a little right now. With the advent of the new Veterans Charter, you can appreciate the workload of the district officers in Veterans Affairs Canada. Sure, they hired 1,400 additional staff, but they're way behind on claims and so forth. You can't really fault them. The training process and workload for the traditional veterans and what they're entitled to, and what the new kids, including me, are entitled to under the new Veterans Charter is significant.

There are people at Veterans Affairs who are cross-trained, some who are new Veterans Charter and some who are old Veterans Charter. Sooner or later they'll be able to play from both sides of the sheet.

A tremendous amount of work has gone into that. The reason I mention that, of course, is that the investigators, if they're working for the veterans ombudsman, are going to have to understand both systems--I am not an expert on either. They should have the ability to work independently with minimum supervision and of course be accountable for their actions.

I think I'll stop there, Mr. Chairman, and respond to any questions you or your committee may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

That's fine.

We're now going to move to our Liberal colleagues.

I believe Mr. Valley is the first up with questions, for seven minutes.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you to our guests for coming today. We learn something every time we have a meeting. You made some very direct statements, and we appreciate that.

I've learned something about you, too. You made the comment that you're not fond of the word “complaints”. I learned a lot from that. I agree with you; it should be “issues”. We shouldn't be putting a negative connotation on anything. If we're starting something such as an ombudsman, he should be dealing with issues. We should never use the word “complaints”--which would be good for us.

I want to thank you for your long service, and your service even after you retired. It's important for us to hear from somebody who knows what they're talking about. I can't even remember how many places you've been, how many difficult situations you've been through, and how many challenges you've had to face.

I have a couple of questions. I'm surprised the forces have such poor medical records...or maybe there are gaps in medical records. If we want an ombudsman to help somebody, he needs accurate information. How did the poor record keeping come about? Through all the different areas you've served in, why are there gaps in some of the service people's records?

[Col Don Ethell]

It is because soldiers are soldiers. I say that, having come through the infantry throughout my career. It may sound macho, but when you're on a realistic training exercise, or you're jumping out of airplanes, or you're on the back of a carrier or a tank, or whatever, and you fall and have an injury, in a lot of cases it's called suck it up and catch up to the rest of them. Theoretically, a CF98 report of injuries should be written and witnessed and so forth. That's awkward to do in the middle of an exercise.

I'm not knocking the medics or the unit medical officers. When they do have a more serious injury and they get pushed out through the system, once again, theoretically, they should have a CF98 report of injuries. That document is one of the key documents for somebody going forward to receive some type of benefit or treatment as they move through Veterans Affairs. That document and the release medical...where the doctor indicates on the last page that these are the things that possibly could be attributed to military service, and lists them, bang, bang, bang. Doctors are human. For some of them it is a judgment call on their part.

You leap ahead x number of years and some of these things come back to haunt you. You go into Veterans Affairs and say you think you have a hearing problem, or a bit of a problem with your leg from that bad jump you had. At one time, if there wasn't a CF98, a report of injuries, your chances of having it moved forward were very slim.

We've come a long way in the last ten years with Veterans Affairs in regard to talking with people almost from an adversarial approach, to the benefit of the doubt going to the individual, to the extent that yes, that documentation is very important, but—

We've both experienced this when somebody has come forward: “Do you remember that accident where the vehicle rolled over and there were a couple of people killed? I was in the back of that truck and was banged up a little.” You say, “I remember it.” “Can you write me a statement to give to Veterans Affairs, because that left arm that's a little wonky is starting to bother me?”

Veterans Affairs will accept that. In other words, they need something to hang their hat on instead of an official document.

I've been a soldier all my life, so I can understand where they're coming from when there's not sufficient documentation.

I thank you for that question. I'm just going to carry on for a second. You have me on a roll here.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

The more you talk, the less I have to.

[Col Don Ethell]

The closing of the ranks between DND and Veterans Affairs Canada is significant. That, quite frankly, started when Admiral Larry Murray was a deputy minister at Veterans Affairs. He shook things up; he established the Canadian Forces Advisory Council, and we got rolling on how to improve service to the veterans.

Part and parcel of that was that at one time when an individual was in the service...you finished your service and then you dropped off the end of the table. Your documents and so forth went to somewhere here in Ottawa--the microfiche and so forth--and then when Veterans Affairs had to pick up that file, they had to find the microfiche, get the documents, and call them forward, etc.

We like to think that has improved, particularly with the new Veterans Charter, where DND and VAC are like this now. When they get out, including our colleagues coming out of Afghanistan or wherever, they are released from the forces and there is a transition team of not only DND but also VAC. So when Bloggins and Smith get out, it's mandatory they go through this. Are there gaps in that? Are some people dropping through the cracks? Of course. This is a big system and the level of service varies across the country. That's only human nature. For an individual who is getting out, one of the questions I'm sure they'll be asked is, “What injuries did you suffer and are they recorded? What is not recorded?”

We've had a couple of cases where people applied, including some of our members, for some type of treatment-cum-annuity before April of this year. They were turned down. Our answer to that is appeal, appeal, appeal, which drives VAC crazy, but that's just the way it is.

Since then, we've also advised them to go back and apply again, because some of the benchmarks changed with the new Veterans Charter. They're getting picked up, but it's going to take a long time.

Does that answer your question, sir?

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Yes, it does.

It leads me in a bit of a different direction from some other testimony that we've heard. You may have said this, but I'd like you to repeat it. On the individual we're looking for to be the ombudsman for the forces, we've heard a statement that they should have a little bit of military experience, but they shouldn't have too much, because they get too entrenched in the ways.

Do you have an opinion on that? You may have said it already. Does the ombudsman we're looking for need some military background?

[Col Don Ethell]

Yes, and he should be an ex-Patricia with fourteen years and tours overseas--and I volunteer.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

I left myself open for that one.

[Col Don Ethell]

It's a good question. I never thought I was going to be asked that, but it's very similar to becoming a member of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. There are a number of ex-military people, including one from our regiment who was taken on board a week ago in the official announcement.

It's a two-edged sword. One of the points we made during our deliberations in CFAC, when we were “pinging” on VRAB, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, which really was out of our mandate, was that there are not enough ex-military people there. We were then reminded that sometimes when there are military people, as in the past on VRAB, they're even harder on the military than those who haven't had military experience.

In the case of the ombudsman, we're talking about one individual, not a team of thirty, as is the case in VRAB. The selection of that individual is going to have to be very important. I don't think the selection of the individual should dwell on whether he or she has had military experience. It would make life a lot easier for him or her if they understood what a company was, or a platoon attack, or an attack profile by a ship, or something like that.

Having said that, he or she has investigators, similar to the ombudsman from DND. Some of them are permanent, some of them are what I think they term on-call specialists. They, from different walks of the military, could provide advice to the ombudsman who didn't have that background.

That's a long answer that amounts to a definite maybe.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Thank you very much. I appreciate your comments.

Monsieur Perron, for seven minutes.

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

Good day, colonel.

In your opening remarks, referring to the ombudsman, you said that this man or woman or position must report to the minister. If I were to define the responsibilities of the ombudsman for Ontario or any other province, including Quebec, I do not see how the position could report to the minister, since all ombudsmen in Canada answer not directly to a minister but to their legislative assemblies. Under his mandate, the ombudsman protects people and also corrects errors or injustices committed at their expense, both individually and collectively. Although the term is not accepted here in Ottawa by the government, an ombudsman is a watchdog. How can he be impartial and bite the hand that feeds him? He needs to report to a committee and not to the minister of Veterans Affairs.

[Col Don Ethell]

Thank you, sir.

I can't respond in French because I'm a unilingual Calgarian.

It's a very good question, and it's almost a political question that you're asking of a soldier. My personal opinion is that reporting to a committee would be awkward. With all due respect to this committee, sometimes committee decisions take forever.

I am led to believe that the ombudsman for DND responds to the Minister of National Defence. There is a thought that the ombudsman from Veterans Affairs should be the same individual as for DND, similar to Australia, I think. I personally don't agree with that, because it's almost a conflict of interest.

With all due respect, sir, I think he should respond to the minister, with the clear understanding that I mentioned—integrity, honesty, and so forth. But he has to report to somebody, and if it's not going to be the minister, it's going to be a committee or, for that matter, and I'm way out of my depth here, possibly to Parliament.

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

I said to Parliament or to the House, not necessarily to the committee. This could be determined later, but I could easily see the Speaker of the House being in charge of this committee because the ombudsman would become a senior official of the House of Commons. He would become a senior official. As far as a Department of National Defence ombudsman goes, I should like to recall the case of André Marin. In August 2003, André Marin published a beautiful report on the SISIP, the infamous insurance plan that becomes taxable income once members of the military leave. The report was so well done that the Department—such a supporter of the veterans—told him that it would not renew his contract on July 5, 2005. That is the risk. André Marin dared to bite the hand of the minister of National Defence and found himself elsewhere. Now he has a good job; he is Ombudsman for Ontario. This is the danger I see. An ombudsman may have integrity and be impartial, as you say, but how could he go against his boss? How can he issue a report against his boss or his boss’ organization without having his knuckles rapped? That is my concern, colonel.

[Col Don Ethell]

How about doing it both ways? He responds to the minister, but he cannot be removed from his position without the consent or approval of committee X.

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

Let’s tackle this question in another way. Why should a committee of the House, a committee of some sort, not appoint the ombudsman? Why would an ombudsman, in responding to a job offer, not be required to actually apply? The danger now with this government is that, unfortunately, most of the high-level positions are political appointments. People cannot hide their heads in the sand like ostriches and say that this is not the case. They are political appointments, rewards for friends of the Party. That is the risk here; it is with us and always will be until appointments are made more democratically.