Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 6th, 2006

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

It's all right. We only get five minutes on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

They get a set amount of time. You, sir, carry on. You're giving great testimony, and we appreciate it. You carry on as you wish.

We'll have Mrs. Hinton for seven.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you.

I've listened today with great interest to what you've had to say so far. There are a number of things you've said that I completely agree with and a number of things that I question, but this is only my personal view.

You said the ombudsman doesn't serve anyone other than veterans. I agree with you. He doesn't serve the Speaker and he doesn't serve Parliament. His job is to serve veterans. He should probably answer to the minister, because the minister is held responsible by elections, but that's my point of view.

I had to chuckle when you said committee decisions sometimes take forever. I couldn't agree more. One of the problems—and it's your fault—is that you're one of the people who gave us the freedoms we enjoy today. Democracy is a very difficult thing. Everyone must have a say, and we're listening to a lot of different witnesses. There's something to be said for dictatorships sometimes, where you only do what you want to do.

Thank you very much, by the way, for the freedoms I enjoy today. Without people like you, we wouldn't have those freedoms today.

On the Australian ombudsman, you said a couple of interesting things. You said you didn't like the idea that he served both. According to the mandate of the military ombudsman, his job is to deal directly with complaints from serving members of the Canadian Forces. The ombudsman who would deal with veterans would deal with people who were no longer serving and had already served. I know you said you didn't like it.

Is it a problem that the ombudsman would have to serve two masters, Defence and Veterans Affairs? Do you think it's too big a load for one person to handle both Veterans Affairs and Defence? What did you base your comments on, sir?

[Col Don Ethell]

I think before I answer I'd like to go back to the committee, if I may.

Remember that I went through the army, which is a dictatorship. Those with the highest rank call the shots. When in doubt, you obey the last order.

I appreciate your comments. You're absolutely right. We live in a democracy, and thank God for this Parliament and so forth.

I think they should be split, Mrs. Hinton. I think there'd be a conflict of interest.

There is now a DND ombudsman who is mission specific to the serving member. If that individual has a problem, I would like to think he or she would continue to address the problem, even though the individual has left the service, even though the individual, for whatever reason—you could paint a scenario—may be picked up by the veterans ombudsman, and there would hopefully be a dialogue. If the individual is out of the service, I would like to think the DND ombudsman is not going to drop the issue. It has to move forward.

In the case of the veterans ombudsman, I would think the veterans ombudsman would be concerned with some of the systemic issues. There are gaps in the new Veterans Charter in regard to some of the benefits. There are a number of them. I can't articulate them to you, but I know they're there.

The veterans associations will be going forward on lump sums, long-term care, and that kind of thing. It's an ongoing issue. God bless them. They say to keep “pinging” them because they want to know.

I'm not saying we're an authority on this, but if we can't sort it out, the ombudsman should be able to pick that up. It would be awkward, if not a tremendous increase in workload, in my opinion, if the DND ombudsman were to take that on.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Well, I agree with you once again. I think the charter, the ombudsman's position, and the bill of rights should be living documents. I think they should change as needed, as time goes by. When we recognize there's a problem, I think we need to address it and not wait for it to fester to the point where it can't be addressed. I agree with you that it should be a living document.

There is one thing I would be interested in you elaborating on. I think I heard you correctly. You said you didn't think the ombudsman could overrule or reintroduce decisions of VRAB, and I think they should be able to do that. It sounds like we have a difference of opinion.

I'd like to know why you think the ombudsman shouldn't be able to reintroduce or take a decision back to VRAB.

[Col Don Ethell]

I was hoping you wouldn't ask that question!

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Oh, oh! Sorry.

[Col Don Ethell]

Maybe it's a product of my environment, but I believe in the chain of command, and did so in the military. I believe there are administrative processes you can go through in the case of the military; there are redresses of grievances and so forth. It took awhile for many of us old sweats to be convinced that the DND ombudsman was required. He is required; he is another thing that helps, another avenue that helps the individual.

In the case of veterans, I think the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, including the advocates assigned to the individual, is a situation or circumstance or procedure—whatever term you want to use—that is in place and shouldn't necessarily be changed. I'm not a lawyer. Some of the people are lawyers, including the boss, and I would think there is some legality in regard to any infringement of their authority. But I'm out of my depth, Ms. Hinton. I just think they should be left alone.

There may be some issues where a questionable decision is made by VRAB and you say, geez, they really blew it on this one, and are we going to have the capability to go forward? It's not going to be independent because there are going to be other organizations that come into play.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Those are interesting comments as well.

The other thing you suggested was that you had, as part of an organization, sent back the appeals of people who had been turned down; you sent them back to appeal again. So you're probably of the same thought that VRAB should get it right the first time. But could you give me an example of some of the appeals you sent back where you said, go back again and appeal this decision? I've dealt with them every day, hundreds of them, for the last few years, so I would like to know what you're hearing too.

[Col Don Ethell]

In general, as you know, there are various levels of appeal if the individual is not satisfied with the VRAB. I've never been involved with it, but I understand the individual could also follow this through to a civilian court. I've never seen one; I'm not a service officer for my organization. But he is, I think, with his background.

At the risk of being blunt, I've been turned down by VRAB. I've got some things that came out of the Middle East, and I'm using my personal example here. Am I satisfied with the response by VRAB? No. The advocate in Edmonton is going to get around to it probably sometime in the next year because of the workload. Am I worried about that? No, because I understand they do have a problem. Is it going to go back to VRAB? I certainly hope so, because as I indicated earlier in response to one of the questions here, some of these things should be addressed now that the new Veterans Charter is in place. It opens up another avenue for these individuals to apply.

That's not a very good answer, but it's the best I can do.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

No, it's a very good answer.

The last thing I would like to give you an opportunity to do is to introduce the elusive gentleman at the back of the room, whom we keep referring to and our listening audience has no idea who he is. Would you care to introduce this gentleman, please?

[Col Don Ethell]

Thank you.

Mr. Ron Griffis is from Nova Scotia. He is the newly elected national president of our association; he took over the mantle. We are delighted he's onboard. His background is in the Provost Corps and the OPP, and as a justice of the peace, if not a trial judge--it's kind of scary to have him as our national president.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Col Don Ethell]

We're glad to have him onboard. He participated in the Senate ceremony this morning and of course the GAC announcement at 12:30.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Welcome. Now everyone knows who we're referring to when we talk about the gentleman at the back.

[Col Don Ethell]

He's also my buddy here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Thank you very much.

Now over to Mr. Rota for five minutes.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Thank you, Colonel, for coming this afternoon. It's great to have you here. Thank you for your past service. In this week of November 11, I think it's very appropriate that we thank you for that. And obviously I thank you for your present service as well, because retirement didn't really slow you down. It sounds as if you're just as active as ever.

I have a question for you regarding a statement you made about the ombudsman and who he reports to. The military ombudsman reports to Parliament through the minister, if I'm not mistaken. That's the route taken. One of your comments was that the ombudsman should serve at the pleasure of the veterans affairs minister. My question is, how would that differ from an aide or an executive assistant to the minister, where he would be beckoned to the minister? How would he keep his impartiality when making a decision or when helping an individual? I get the impression of serving the--I was going to say lapdog, but these days you can't say those words in Parliament and get away with it. I look at the situation and I think, if the person is at the pleasure of the minister, how can he detach himself and make individual decisions that would benefit the individual veteran?

The other thing you mentioned is, it was in the interest of a quick turnaround or faster service. I understand what you're saying. It makes a lot of sense; if the individual were reporting to the minister, it would be a lot faster. But I see a bit of a conflict there where there might be a bit of a difference in time, depending on the pleasure of the minister. Maybe you can comment on that.

[Col Don Ethell]

I'm beginning to think, sir, that I'm a bit naive when it comes to politics. I would like to think that whoever the ombudsman is, when he or she is appointed, he or she and the minister will sit down and have a very long chat as to how it's going to work, if he or she is going to report to the minister. If I were the ombudsman, I would be saying to the minister, “You know, there are going to be some calls here that are going to probably tick you off, or your department, but that's the way it is. If I'm going to be the ombudsman then I'm going to be the one who calls the shots. Sure, you can fire me, but you're going to have to have just cause.” If the DND ombudsman--and you educated me, sir--reports to Parliament through the minister, why shouldn't the veterans affairs ombudsman do the same? It's got to be equivalent, in my mind. It's a simple soldier solution: they've got to be the same.

He or she should certainly not be a lapdog to the minister or his or her staff. It should be an independent body: neutral, unbiased, with a great deal of integrity. I use the analogy of the military. When you get the Queen's commission, you take on an awesome responsibility, because as you hear enough, Afghanistan...at a certain point in time, you are going to kill or be killed on order. And that comes with the freight of having the rank, of carrying the Queen's commission. In my case, I said to any officers who worked for me, be they in Lebanon or the Golan or over in Afghanistan, “Don't ever lie to me because if you do I'll crucify you. Your career will be finished.” It's called integrity and honesty. “If you get into a problem that wasn't necessarily your fault, I'll be the first guy to back you up, be it versus a Canadian or any other nationality; I'll stand behind you.” That's integrity.

And I would like to think that the ombudsman and the minister will come to a meeting of minds with regard to how he or she is going to work. Everybody has a boss, and the ombudsman has to have a boss. In this case, if you're going to make it to Parliament through the minister, fine. But the minister has to be involved, in my opinion.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

I appreciate that answer.

You were involved with the Friends of the Colonel Belcher and efforts to replace the old veterans care centre in Calgary with a new modern building. Are there significant differences of housing and health care between the needs of young peacekeeper veterans and the needs of the war service veterans? What kind of role should the veterans ombudsman play concerning the quality of care of these two groups? We keep getting different angles: one from the World War II veterans and one from the post-Korean War veterans.

[Col Don Ethell]

That's a great question, sir.

Yes, I was involved on the committee. We raised $2.2 million to provide enhancements to the existing structure, the Colonel Belcher Veterans Care Centre. At one time, with the closure of CFB Calgary, we wanted to build it adjacent to the Museum of the Regiments.

That didn't go very far because the general manager of the Canada Lands Company said, “Great, Don, bring your cheque book. It's going to cost you $8 million.” We had no political clout in Calgary. We didn't have any Liberal MPs and it simply wasn't going to work.

Premier Klein and Jim Dinning, probably the next premier, who was on our committee, said, “We're not going to wait for the feds to sort this out. We're going to give you the land, the old motor vehicle branch site, worth $26 million.” And we built it--we, being the committee and obviously contractors and the Calgary Health Region. That $2.2 million enhanced each individual room of those veterans in that thing. It's a P-three project. There are 35 non-veterans and 140 traditional veterans.

Many of us who worked on this place have said, you know, none of us is eligible to get in here yet because we don't qualify. A veteran is a veteran is a veteran, but the modern-day veteran is not given access to that.

What did the enhancements do? They improved beds, baths, provided larger rooms, etc. I'm sounding like a Calgarian here, but it is held up as the showpiece. In fact, we convinced the Canadian Forces Advisory Council to hold their meeting in Calgary once. We took them to the veterans care centre and they were blown away.

To go back to your question on the difference between that and other care centres across the country, it is vast. As much as Veterans Affairs pays a certain amount, God bless them, and they're well cared for, there is a variance because you're involving other health authorities. In the case of the Calgary Health Region, you're dealing with provincial authorities.

I don't know if you've been to Ste. Anne's Hospital for veterans in Montreal. They do a great job. In fact, this afternoon I think the minister is opening a new wing or two wings--as we speak, as a matter of fact.

I was there a couple of years ago and there were 600 in there. The wards are sheets hanging between the beds. There is no way we were going to go that way in Calgary. Each individual was going to have a room. So there is a difference.

Sooner or later, and it's on the drawing boards...it was one of the big red flags we were waving when the new Veterans Charter was issued with our colleagues and friends in Veterans Affairs. Don't forget long-term care, because as much as we would love to see all of the modern-day veterans covered by the new Veterans Charter so they would have access to those beds, it's not realistic.

That's why there's a move by the Gerontology Advisory Council, which includes the traditional veterans and the modern-day veterans, to try to get the people to stay at home and provide the service to them. Those services going to them would move with them, be it from his or her house to the son's house or to a care centre.

At the present time, if they move, some of those services are withdrawn. But that's being positively addressed by Veterans Affairs. I don't speak for them, but I know that for a fact.

By the same token, we're still moving forward on having the modern-day veteran arrive at the same level as the traditional veteran. At one time, it was down here. It's up to here now, but there's still a couple of things we're working on, not the least of which is long-term care.

Does that answer your question, sir?

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Now to Mr. Gaudet for five minutes, and Mr. Shipley on deck.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for coming, colonel.

I do not want to play politics, but I think that you are, to a degree, sir. I have trouble when you say that the ombudsman should answer to the minister. Do not forget that the minister is not always the same person. Is the ombudsman going to change every time the minister does? The government has changed three times recently. So there is a complete turnover, ministers, deputy ministers, etc. It does not change quickly, but everyone changes.

Regardless of the government in power, it wants to work with people who agree with it and with its goals. The ombudsman could be named by Parliament for a period of six years. The Speaker of the House of Commons is elected by absolute majority and is accountable to all members of Parliament, but, like the ombudsman, he cannot be ousted overnight. If the ombudsman answers to the minister, I think that there could be some kind of conflict of interest.

I would like to hear your opinion in this regard.

[Col Don Ethell]

I don't think--pardon me for answering in English--that the ombudsman should change with the minister. I indicated earlier, sir, using the example of one change in government once every year for five years, that it would be counterproductive. It goes back to the question of who is going to suffer. I don't care about political appointments and so forth. I'm worried about the veterans, and if you're going to change the ombudsman, they're the ones who are going to suffer. Along the line, if the minister changes, the position doesn't change; the individual changes. He still reports to the minister. It's like reporting to the Chief of the Defence Staff. He may change, but the position doesn't change.

Maybe that's looking at it from a simple soldier point of view, a non-political view, but I would be absolutely dismayed if every time there was a change in government the ombudsman changed, because that's counterproductive. That's my personal opinion.