Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 6th, 2006

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Col Don Ethell]

So when do I start my job as the ombudsman?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thanks, Don.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Okay. We have two more people, Monsieur Perron and Monsieur St. Denis.

It's the Conservative side right now, so I'm going to take my position as chair and use that prerogative to ask you a question.

When Mr. Cliff Chadderton was appearing before us, I know Mr. Epp who was previously here asked this question and I found it was very informative and enlightening. I've enjoyed your presentation so far. He asked about Mr. Chadderton's service and asked him to give us a sense of where he'd been, his story within the Canadian Forces.

I'd like to add an addendum to that. Maybe tell some stories in that five minutes of where you think over the years we as Canadians may have let our soldiers or their families down in terms of provision and looking after them.

So your personal story in terms of your involvement with the forces over the years, and then if you can think of any stories of things, just generically, where you think we could have done a better job as a country—

[Col Don Ethell]

I'll go back to when our battalion was in Germany, along with a very heavy brigade, from 1960 to 1963. This was a time when the Berlin Wall was going up, not down. It was during the Cuba crisis, when the world came the closest it has ever come to nuclear war.

We were deployed, meaning we were on what they called bug-outs, to our alternate general defensive position in the Fulda Gap. Very frequently there was a division alert, a brigade alert, a battalion alert, whatever--we were on the go. Where did that leave the families? The only contact my wife and our newborn babe had with the Canadians was Roulke, a soldier, who was the milkman. It was the same with the others who were living out on the economy.

Sure, the regiment did what they could, but we know now that we were canon fodder to delay the Russian hordes coming through the Fulda Gap, with our soft-skinned vehicles, the three-quarter tonnes, making them look like APCs, and so forth. We know that now. The families were hung out to dry. The government of the day provided a lot of troops and as many amenities as they had, but it went back to, “You've got to do your job first.”

We have come light years from that to what the Canadian Forces does now, particularly when there's a casualty. The families of those who pay the ultimate sacrifice have a tremendous support team. If there's a wounded individual, what facility is he in? The University of Alberta Hospital had a whole raft of them there from the 1st Battalion and the 2nd Battalion Patricia's, and right across the road was the rehab centre. There has been no expense spared in taking care of the casualties.

That's a long way from a soldier getting killed or one of the dependants getting killed over in Germany: “Right. Take them to the burrow and bury them. If you want to send him home, you pay for it. A lead-lined coffin is going to cost such and such.” “If you want to go home to see your sick mother, pay for it.” That doesn't happen any more.

Similarly, in the bad old days, as they called them in the EOKA campaign in Cyprus, when people were killed, they were buried there. There are cemeteries all over this world where Canadians are still buried. There are some down in Kantara near the Suez Canal. There are some in Beirut. There are Canadians buried in the Commonwealth cemetery in Gaza. A bunch of Canadians go to these spots every year on November 11 to remember them.

So we've come a long way from the days when the armed forces was very large. As I indicated, in Germany in the sixties and late fifties a tremendous number of Canadian flyers were killed—106 Sabre pilots alone were killed in training accidents and so forth. You didn't see the Governor General showing up when those people were killed. God bless her when she went to meet the aircraft in Germany with the four who were killed by American actions.

We've come a long way from when Corporal Mark Isfeld was killed by a land mine in Croatia and three people were on the tarmac to meet the body. There are now troops and honour guards, and the minister is usually there, along with the Chief of Defence Staff and so forth. We've come a long way.

Life has become very precious to us--that's something Canadians can be very proud of--unlike other countries where we have served where life is not precious. You can think of a number of countries where we've served, like the Balkans and certainly Afghanistan, where life is not necessarily as precious as we Canadians see it.

Those are just a couple of examples. The people we had serving in Cambodia saw the same thing. The ones we had in Somalia--never mind the incident--did an outstanding job, but they were let down by the system. The regiment was let down, as were the soldiers, and they were tainted by that forever, unfortunately.

So we've come a long way.

Does that answer the question, Mr. Chairman?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

That does. I appreciate your input on that.

Monsieur Perron.

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

I would just like to add a few words in closing.

Let’s talk about the ombudsman who was accountable to the minister during the Gulf War in 1992. He told soldiers to be careful of the air they were breathing over there, that it could be hazardous to their health. In 1994 and 1995, he said virtually the same thing. Then, in the report Yves Côté tabled in October 2006, we learned that nothing was ever done and that the medical records for every case of exposure during the Gulf War were destroyed.

I cannot understand how the citizens of Canada did not find out about this, that is, that the three ombudsman’s reports had been hidden somewhere.

In 2006, the government changed. It is a lot easier to hand in a report where you say you were supposed to follow the instructions of the ombudsman, but of which no trace can be found. It was to get the best of both worlds, I suppose. I don’t know.

This is why I think an ombudsman answering to ministers is worth what it’s worth, which is almost nothing. There is an old saying in Quebec. When I was young, my father always said to me, “Never bite the hand that feeds you.”

How can ombudsman, in doing his job, not be a little more pro-minister than pro-veteran?

Thank you, sir.

You may answer if you wish, but I am not expecting any comment or response. The choice is yours.

[Col Don Ethell]

The selection of the individual is key, and there's a great deal of integrity. You said he's going to bite the hand that feeds him. If he doesn't like what the minister is saying, he can resign. I'd like to think he's not going to do that. If the minister doesn't like it, he can say, “You're finished; you're fired.” But I think the minister would be very hesitant to do that because of the flak, if it were done without a lot of justification.

With all due respect to what they say in your home province and so forth, I like to think that across this country there's a great deal of integrity associated with the appointment of the ombudsman.

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

I would like to ask a question.

How was the ombudsman for National Defence appointed, Mr. Yves Côté?

[Col Don Ethell]

I don't know.

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

He was a friend of the party--a lawyer representing National Defence.

[Col Don Ethell]

I understand that, but it's not my place to say.

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

It's what we're living now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

I think this wraps up that aspect of the discussion.

Mr. St. Denis.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you very much, Colonel, for being here--with the incoming president, I understand.

There are levels of issues within the question of what an ombudsman's office should look like. Minor issues like how long the mandate is and the budget and so on are important questions. Among the major issues is the reporting question, and that's been covered quite a bit today, so I'm not going to go there. Also among the major questions is access to documents--what access to documents an ombudsman would have to pursue a particular issue and so on. As well, one of the major things would be on what the mandate is. Is it a broad mandate, including the pensions and appeals process, or is it constrained?

It was actually our colleague Colin Mayes who was probing the issue of whether an ombudsman would be more involved with systemic issues, issues of general concern that are impeding veterans' access to one program or another, or whether the ombudsman would get involved in individual cases. That's a debate we will continue to have.

I'd like your comment on, for example, a recruit who entered the military going into World War II--and as you're well aware, there are declining numbers of veterans around from that time--versus a recruit going in now. I'm assuming that between the recruit 50 or 60 years ago, or the recruit going in for Korea, and a recruit now, the recruit now is a lot more aware of what's going on simply because there is more information available.

Would it be a role for the ombudsman to account for that difference in the level of naïveté, say, of a recruit 50 or 60 years ago versus a new recruit coming in now who later becomes a veteran? Would it be the role of an ombudsman to deal with the different levels of record keeping? The records 50 and 60 years ago were maybe as good as they could be at the time, but presumably record keeping is better now.

Finally, there are generally, if I could simplify it, three broad categories of injury; there is the physical wound; there is the trauma or stress kind of injury; and then maybe a chemical type of injury. There may be other categories, but those are three big ones. Would an ombudsman need different levels of expertise, given the three different general areas?

In the few moments remaining, could you comment on old records versus record keeping now, naïveté for recruits a long time ago versus now, and the general areas of injury?

[Col Don Ethell]

Record keeping.... In the army, we used to have what we called an ITR, an individual training record. It had a pay book. Heaven forbid if the company lost your ITR because that detailed all your courses and so forth. Yes, there'd be a hard copy of course reports, and yes, you could lose your pay book. It's a chargeable offence, because then somebody has to go through the pay office and find out what they owe you. That doesn't happen today. It's all automated and it's direct banking and so forth.

Let me leap ahead to 1967, where, as a sergeant, I was posted here to National Defence Headquarters from a battalion--why me, God?--to the personal management information systems study group on how we were going to integrate the three records from the army, navy, and air force because they were all different. To make a long story short, we came up with what they call a CF490, which is the automated Canadian Forces record of service, the old punch card business. I only lasted two years here and then I went back to the battalion. So that's the way it has progressed.

Nowadays, I don't know the system intimately, but it's all automated in regard to records.

As for the soldier, it's come light years from...we used to have an expression in the infantry that the best infantry platoon you could have was a bunch of grade five Saskatchewan farmers. They were all strong; they didn't need to be particularly well-educated.

When I joined the army--I had a grade 11 education, and obviously I brought it up--I was the highest educated guy in my company of 130 people, exclusive of the officers, of course.

Nowadays, these kids are smart. A lot of them have at least one year of university. They're very worldly. They're computer literate. They know what's going on so you're not going to be able to snow them. Not that you would get snowed in the old days, but there is light years from Corporal Bloggins joining in 1956 to the kids coming in today. Great talent, higher educated, of course, in one part, because of the sophistication of the weapons systems they have to use.... With all due respect to grade five Saskatchewan farmers, you can't employ them on a sophisticated weapons systems, a LAV-III or a tank, or whatever. So they've come a long, long way.

So there is a difference.

In the old days, sure, some people would grab a hold of themselves and move forward in the ranks and so forth. However, as a young soldier, you were more concerned with what the sergeant or, heaven forbid, the sergeant major was doing. You really didn't know the officers, and you could care less because you were very isolated in your own little world. That's changed, when you look at what's happening in Afghanistan with our troops as they move through an area as a cosmopolitan group of very well-educated and well-trained people. There is light years of difference between the two.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

It's now one minute and fifty seconds over time.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Basically, I can conclude by saying that an ombudsman who is dealing with issues of today would have to also recognize that issues for the older veterans.... There's been a tremendous change in not only the record keeping but in the level of naïveté of a recruit from a long time ago and now.

[Col Don Ethell]

I didn't answer the question. I'm sorry. There is a difference, as I indicated earlier on, sir, between the traditional veteran in World War II and the Korean veteran, and their training, background, and issues, compared to the modern-day veteran. Remember, for the modern-day veteran, the people coming out today, the average age is 36, plus there is a bunch of older people who are “modern-day veterans” who are in their sixties.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Thank you, Colonel.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Colonel Ethell, I want to give you a commendation, in the sense that these committee meetings can be two hours long. Rarely do they last a full two hours because we usually have other business or sometimes the questions wrap up before then. You, sir, have managed to enthrall us for the full two hours. I've appreciated your frank and experienced background in answering the questions today. I've thoroughly enjoyed it. And like the other members of the committee, I want to thank you as well for your years of service where you made the country better.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, Hear!

[Col Don Ethell]

I return the compliment, sir, because it was an honour. I didn't know what to expect, coming to this committee. It was an honour and, to be quite frank, an enlightening experience. Some of the questions, as you may have gathered, were difficult for me to answer. But that's what this committee is all about. If they'd all been easy, I would have been disappointed.

So I thank you, Mr. Perron, and others.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Thank you very much for your time, sir. All the very best.

The meeting is adjourned.