Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 6th, 2006

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I realize that it is your personal opinion. If the ombudsman were appointed by the members of the House of Commons for six years, two-thirds of the members could decide whether to keep him or not and not the government or the minister of the day.

Personally, I think it would be much better for veterans if he were appointed by two-thirds of members of Parliament. He would be sure of having a six-year term that way.

We met with Mr. Marin the other day; he told us that there were 25,000 complaints a year in Ontario. He has a $9.6 million budget and is accountable to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I do not see why it would be different here. I would find it marvellous, because veterans would be better protected then if the ombudsman reported to the minister. If there is another minister and that minister does not agree with the ombudsman, he may not listen to him and choose to disregard him. If the ombudsman were accountable to the House of Commons, I presume that he would be well supported.

As I recall, the last time we studied the new Canada’s Veterans Charter—as you said earlier, it wasn’t perfect, I agree with you—it was carried by unanimous consent of the House of Commons in 2004. Members in all political parties were in agreement.

This means that veterans are much better protected by the House of Commons than by a minister.

I gave you my opinion. I have nothing against ministers. They do good work, but they have to toe the party line and make decisions based on their election platform and their mandate. That is why I do not agree that the ombudsman should report to the minister.

[Col Don Ethell]

Thank you, sir. As I say, I'm not a political animal. Am I allowed to use that term? I still think the ombudsman should report to the minister. If he's going to have a five- or six-year mandate, that's fine. That gives us continuity. That solves my problem, because the veteran is being served. I don't want to get into the politics of whether he should be changed because the party changes and so forth. That's not my call. It's your call. You're the ones who make the decisions up there. But there should be some continuity. By the same token, I think he should report to the minister. He's got to report to somebody, and I think it would be preferable to report to the minister rather than to a committee.

Does that answer your question, sir?

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

You are entitled to your opinion, but I do not agree with you. In my opinion, the ombudsman must answer to Parliament because, otherwise, veterans will not be protected. Take a look at what happened to the ombudsman—

Is my time up?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

You are 31 seconds over.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Yves Côté, Ombudsman for National Defence, published a report last week.

How many years had it been since the last report? He answered to the department and to the minister. How long had it been since there was a report on veterans? Defence wasn’t happy, no one was happy. That is why I am saying to you that if the ombudsman reported to the minister, veterans would be very unhappy.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

You're a minute over.

I want to interject at this point. Colonel Ethell, most of us--I don't want to speak for the entire committee--probably don't want the person, as the quote goes, to be a “lapdog to the minister”. I for one believe they should probably be along the lines of the Auditor General: reporting to the committee, etc., something like that.

That being said, I appreciate your point of view, sir. You served for decades for us and you believed in the chain of command. Having that corporate structure worked very well; it would be the only thing that works in war scenarios. I understand where you're coming from on that, sir.

Committees do take a long time. We understand. That is the nature of the beast.

Mr. Sweet, for five minutes.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Thank you very much, Colonel, for coming today. I echo the appreciation of everyone on the committee for the sacrifices you and many of your colleagues made.

With the experience you had with the ombudsman with the Department of National Defence, and from feedback from colleagues, have you been happy with the performance of the office of the ombudsman for DND?

[Col Don Ethell]

Yes. I've had no dealings personally with the ombudsman. I have had dealings with a number of investigators, and with some of the investigations, which they obviously did not explain to me because they're confidential. But we saw the end result--the incident in Edmonton and in Suffield and so forth. They were involved in the investigation, and the result was quite fair.

As I indicated, in the past you could look at whether it was necessary to go to the ombudsman. Why couldn't this have been sorted out through the chain of command? Why wasn't it? Well, it wasn't. The end result was that the ombudsman got involved and forced the chain of command to take the appropriate action, if you want to use that term. The same should happen in VAC.

I can't quote you a specific example.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

No, and I don't need one, Colonel. I wanted to ask you that, because in other conversations we've had over the last while with witnesses...there's also the ombudsman's capability to assert influence to make sure judgments are upheld. It's the difference between legislative authority and moral authority. I take it that the ombudsman for DND operates as the ombudsman does for Ontario, with moral authority only.

As we look at the terms of reference for the new ombudsman for Veterans Affairs Canada, I want to ask if you and your colleagues are happy with that.

[Col Don Ethell]

I think so.

I don't know how the DND ombudsman works, but one would think that anybody in that position is not working in isolation. First of all, you have a team of investigators--maybe one person, but possibly a team--who are investigating and writing reports and working under the direction of directors, if not managers. They've massaged this issue. They've gone through it. They've looked at it. They've sought legal advice from their legal officers who were on board.

By the time it gets to the ombudsman and there's a round table discussion, it's: “Don't present me with a problem; give me three alternatives and the recommended solution.” That's the way we used to do it, and that's how I would like to think the ombudsman works. He would be intimately involved in that he's receiving periodic updates. He's involved--not intimately involved at that stage--and when push comes to shove and he or she has to submit the decision, it's resting on his or her shoulders. He's not working in isolation.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Thank you, Colonel.

Bev.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

If the committee is all right with it, there's a minute and a half left on Mr. Sweet's time, and I sense he wants to shift it to Mr. Shipley.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Along with everyone else, Mr. Ethell, I suspect you haven't been that successful in your retirement, listening to what you've been telling us. I think you're very active and continue to carry on with the best interests of veterans at heart, and we all appreciate that as we enter today into veterans week. I appreciated seeing you there this morning at the service.

I wanted to go back to our discussion about the appeal board, just for some clarification. There were some comments made by Mr. Perron regarding the appointments and how those have maybe been made for political reasons. I want to be really clear that this government is working to make a go--regardless of whether or not they are all Conservatives--of appointments that are based on merit and qualifications.

There's been a lot of talk at this board about the Veterans Review Appeal Board and about how there needs to be a balance there, that it not be all political people. There's a high percentage--over 50%--of those on there now. Those are not the right people to have on it. I think we need to have the balance of those people be with the military, and certainly from the medical and legal areas, and have probably very little political influence in it.

So when we see that, and we have this continued backlog because of some of those things that are there, do you see that the ombudsman, when disputes do come up--and we hope there would be fewer of them because of the right design for the appeal board--would be there only for the awarding of the last resort, or would they be able to intervene if something started to go off the rails?

[Col Don Ethell]

Just to go back to your point on VRAB, as I indicated a few moments ago, sir, we made a comment in the Canadian Forces Advisory Council that we were not happy with the VRAB until we were educated a little bit. But some of us still took offence to the fact that they were political appointees.

We think it should be based on merit. Based on some of the decisions, and seeing the backgrounds of some of the people who have come out, I don't know how it's happening in the minister's office or at the senior level of VRAB, but there seems to have been an improvement on that selection.

If it's going to continue to be a VRAB appointment, so be it. We have to live with it. We've lived with it for years. If it's going to be a political appointment, once again, we're getting into an area that is really not my area of expertise, and that's how the ombudsman fits into the process in regard to a VRAB decision.

Is he going to have the authority to investigate that decision? I think there could be a case made for that, recognizing I think--and once again I'm out of my depth here--that there's a legal aspect associated with that.

Does that answer the question, sir?

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

That's good enough for now. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Now, Colonel Ethell, we're going over to Mr. Eyking, with Mr. Shipley on deck if he has more.

Mr. Eyking, go ahead, please.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd also like to welcome you here, Colonel. Being from Cape Breton, I have to say we made a good choice in picking a Nova Scotian and bringing him here today.

There was some talk today about services in Australia. My question is more about how we compare to the other NATO countries in how we handle veterans. I heard somebody mention once that overall we have one of the best veterans programs when you compare those in all the NATO countries. Now, maybe that's just somebody from within bragging.

What are some of the major differences between our programs and those of the Netherlands or Belgium? Do they have ombudsmen over there too?

[Col Don Ethell]

I can't answer the question about ombudsmen. In fact, I can't answer the question about continental Europe.

But I do know that in the drafting--and I don't speak for VAC--of the new Veterans Charter there was considerable, if not ongoing, discussion regarding how they develop things in Australia. There's an exchange officer. One or more Australian officers are employed in senior positions within VAC here. Conversely, there are Canadians down there. They looked at New Zealand.

They certainly looked at the system in Britain, where, as you're probably aware, veterans affairs is under the defence department, which is mind-boggling, but that's the way they do it over there. That's their business. If that is the case, then if they do have an ombudsman--and I don't know that they do for sure--it would be one individual.

They certainly have a dialogue with the United States, remembering that there are 1,000 to 1,500 from Second World War ops who die every day in the United States. Their veterans association is massive compared to ours, and I don't know if they have an ombudsman. I can't answer the question.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

On some of the services from Veterans Affairs, you mentioned the charter we have in place now. But when you're on peacekeeping duty with these other countries, you must be comparing notes about when you go back home and what the different countries offer. What countries really stand out as having some of the better services for veterans?

[Col Don Ethell]

I can answer that question, because, first of all, the U.S. has a marvellous system. They're so large that when an individual retires or gets out of the service, he or she has a base near wherever they're going to retire, which provides everything: the continuance of use of the commissary, and of dental and medical care for the veteran and his or her family. Of course, they're a much larger organization; they have veterans hospitals all over the place and so forth. The U.S. system is much more comprehensive than ours. We're peanuts compared to what the VA does in the United States, and I think it's similar too.

I'm trying to think of people I've talked to...the Australians during the Beirut wars; they were well taken care of. We had an incident in southern Lebanon where one of our majors hit a landmine, and he still has psychological and physical problems to this day. But his New Zealand patrol mate, a young captain, was decapitated, and he had a wife and three kids. From my understanding, the benefits—I can't get into the details, and I'm talking the late 1950s—were very comprehensive. So they take care of their own, at least in New Zealand and Australia.

Most of those from the Scandinavian countries, whom I served with as military observers, were reservists. Back to your point, I don't know how they were taken care of. They're taken on for six months—the Swedish school teachers, Norwegian ski instructors, and so forth—given a uniform, and they go and do their job. Then they go back to something, but I don't know how they're covered. I can't really answer that question either.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Now over to Mr. Mayes for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to say thank you very much for being here today. I really enjoy the fact that orders are concise, and you're a concise man in what you have presented to us. It's not a lot of flowery speech. It's right to the point, and I really do appreciate that, which is all part of your military background.

Sir, one of the challenges Veterans Affairs Canada has is that we have over 7,000 appeals going to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. What I hear from this committee is that we're looking to this ombudsman to help that out and cut those numbers down.

Do you see that as being realistic, or how would this would be done? Would it be for an ombudsman to take on the veterans issues and be an advocate for the veteran during the appeal process? Or do you see the ombudsman being more involved in some of the systematic issues, in what's happening at ground level when it comes to those decisions not to extend benefits or pensions to veterans? Do you think we need to look beyond the appeal to see what's wrong with the program, with the whole system?

[Col Don Ethell]

Thank you for that.

When they first started the ombudsman, I was of the opinion that it should be limited to systemic problems, particularly knowing that there are gaps in the new Veterans Charter. And who better than the ombudsman to look at it, recognizing that the veterans associations and VAC are looking at some of those gaps? But the right decision may not be made.

So is the ombudsman going to be limited to just systemic problems, or is he going to get involved in individual cases, and who's going to make the selection as to which cases he's going to investigate? Is it going to be the individual's right, or is it going to be the individual making application to the ombudsman? If that's the case, and I'm just thinking aloud here, what process would they go through? Have you been to VRAB? Have you been through the levels of appeal? Have you exhausted your appeals with VRAB?

If in the opinion of the ombudsman and his staff the VRAB decision was correct, then one of the issues would be, is it worthwhile for him or her to investigate that? If there was an element of doubt, you could make a case that the ombudsman could get involved in individual cases.

But I think they have to walk before they run. There's enough work for the ombudsman there in regard to—God bless them—the new Veterans Charter. It was done quickly and pushed through Parliament. We got it through, and now we have to play a little catch-up on some of the systemic problems within the new Veterans Charter.

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

Would you see any sunset if the role of the ombudsman was to deal with systemic issues? It would be structured so you would see fewer appeals and a department that was more responsive to veterans' needs? Do you see that going on forever, as far as the role of an ombudsman is concerned?