Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 6th, 2006

[Col Don Ethell]

I didn't quite follow you.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

If the system were working properly, would you need an ombudsman? That's the question I'm asking. If the ombudsman reviewed the system, the systemic issues, as you said, and came up with some solutions, and those solutions were endorsed by the department, is there a fix here?

[Col Don Ethell]

With all due respect to the government departments, there's no government department that's perfect. There are only two things that are perfect: God and my wife.

I'm being facetious there, but I think that as much as Veterans Affairs has done a great job--I keep going back to the new Veterans Charter--and having seen what they've done in the last ten years, are they perfect? No, they're not perfect. They have to have a watchdog. They need somebody to say, “Listen, investigate. You have a problem here.” And quite frankly, I think they would welcome it. In fact, I know they would welcome it. We need somebody to say that this is not right. We know it's not right, but we can't do much about it unless we have some additional influence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

You have ten seconds, Mr. Mayes.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Okay. Then what I see happening, if there is to be an ombudsman, is a real ramp-up of issues and reviews. Then I see fewer things that the ombudsman is going to have to do after those are addressed. There is going to be a levelling off of some of those imperfect things the department does. Would you say that's a good observation?

[Col Don Ethell]

I think that may be right. It may drop off, but on the other side of the coin, as Ms. Hinton indicated and as somebody else indicated, the new Veterans Charter is a living document. It's a living document in which there will have to be improvements. As I indicated, if VAC had known that Afghanistan was coming up, there probably would have been more thought put into various aspects of the new Veterans Charter.

Is there going to be something else that comes up that triggers additional thought on the new Veterans Charter? Are all the regulations associated with the new Veterans Charter correct? I don't know, but I doubt it. I doubt it. There are going to have to be modifications as we go along, and we need that godfather or watchdog, whatever you want to call it, sitting there in the event that they need some more influence or push to make those changes.

Sure, there'll be a ramp-up, but I don't think it's going to drop down, no. I'm not saying they're going to be a make work organization. There will be a lot of business out there. In the same way, the number of investigators can fluctuate. As I indicated, there will be some permanent people and others that will be called forward to investigate a specific case based on an area of expertise of some sort.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Now we're over to Mr. Stoffer for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

One of the concerns here, if you take, for example, the VIP package, is that a lot of veterans, of course, aren't part of any program because they are so independent, and they say, “No, I don't need government to help me.” Then Buddy goes out and shovels the driveway, has a heart attack, and dies. His spouse is left behind. Now what does she do?

One of the concerns of an ombudsman is serving veterans. I'm just asking your opinion here, but shouldn't family members or spouses of deceased veterans or very disabled veterans, who may not be able to speak for themselves, be able to have access to the ombudsman to register concerns or issues they may have?

[Col Don Ethell]

Yes, and I say that knowing that there are, what, 134,000 out there--who hopefully will be addressed with regard to VIP and so forth--who have fallen through the cracks. Once again, it's a personal opinion.

Some of these things can be transferrable from the individual to the spouse. There are cases where the spouse is receiving some VIP benefits, and hopefully in the months to come, in the near future, VAC will have reacted accordingly and moved that over. It's tied to the GAC report that was tabled today, where they are looking at a single point of entry. Remember that term?

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

Sir, when you say GAC, for the record—

[Col Don Ethell]

The Gerontological Advisory Council report, which was presented to the minister this morning—

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

I know what it means, but it's for Hansard. We're different.

On the other issue, sir, I will play the devil's advocate on this one. I know that consultation is so very, very important to organizations such as yours, the Legion, and others. But someone said to me out in the hall a while ago that wouldn't an ombudsman then--I'm just playing the devil's advocate here--give the government the excuse to not consult as much? If you have an issue or a concern, you can go to the ombudsman and raise your issue with the ombudsman, instead of having the open door you had before and the consultation with the veterans.

I'm not saying this current administration would do that or that anyone would do that, but it may offer that level of bureaucracy. Whereas before you could speak to the minister and the department on issues and get them straightened out, now they push you towards the ombudsman and say, “Well, we have an ombudsman. We're paying him millions of dollars. Go and see him.” Are you not fearful of that at all?

[Col Don Ethell]

No, I am not really, because I like to think.... Remember, there are the big three, as I indicated, the veterans association...the little three as we call ourselves. We've been involved in the process because we represent a different group from the Legion and the veterans, generally.

And I don't think that's going to change. I really don't think it's going to change, even if there's a change in government--and I'm not saying there's going to be one, obviously. Since we started CFA we've gone through four ministers. Ministers come and go. God bless the current one, who's doing a great job, as did the previous one, and so forth.

The continuity, of course, is with the department. We had two great deputy ministers, and not the least was Jack Stagg, may he rest in peace, and Verna Bruce is carrying on as the acting deputy minister. We deal with them and the ADMs through there. The minister is there, and they're all accountable to him, or her, as in the case of Minister Guarnieri. They know that and we know that.

I don't think there's going to be a cop-out, to use that term, to say, okay, we have a problem here, take it up with the ombudsman. I don't think so.

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

Okay. Very good.

My last question for you has been brought up before, and it's sort of a sidetrack to what we were talking about today. There are veterans who have had the opportunity to be married for a long, long time, and that's a real blessing. But for some of them, of course, their spouses will pass on and they'll remarry in their late fifties, for example. And then when they pass on, their second spouse will be entitled to their benefits. If they remarry past 60, they're not entitled to anything. That was called the gold-digger clause, which I'm sure you're aware of.

I'm just wondering if you could offer your opinion. There are some of us on both sides of the House trying to change the so-called gold-digger clause. I'm just wondering what your view is on that.

[Col Don Ethell]

To what?

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

The fact is that if you remarry after 60, when you pass on, your second spouse should be entitled to any pension benefits that you incur. Right now, if you were to remarry after 60, your second spouse would be entitled to nothing.

[Col Don Ethell]

If she's 23 and good looking, what's wrong?

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

It comes from the Boer War.

[Col Don Ethell]

No, once again, that was an inappropriate remark on my part.

How many cases are we going to have of that?

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

Not many—

[Col Don Ethell]

And once again, you have to give the minister some latitude here. I think the minister should be in a position to say, to put it bluntly, yes or no: “Present a case to me of this and I will make a decision based on the recommendation from my senior staff”, and so forth. That's one way of getting around it. It may sound like a bit of a cop-out, because I wouldn't like to see that in black and white, personally.

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

So you would be against the gold-digger clause or be in support of it?

[Col Don Ethell]

Case by case...halfway between. Give the minister the authority to make the decision.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

You're able to be a politician now.

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

Yes, you're getting to be a politician now. You know that, Don. You came in here as a soldier and you're leaving as a politician.