Veterans Affairs Committee on June 14th, 2007

[Ray Kokkonen]

Clearly, yes.

I have had some experience with contact with the centre. There's a military person, Major Gilles Paquette, who runs the CF side of it. I have spoken with him, and I think it's an ideal type of interface organization.

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

I'm out of time too.

Thank you so much for coming.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Now on to Mr. St. Denis, with the Liberals, for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yes, I agree with my colleagues; this has been extremely helpful this morning, Mr. Kokkonen.

Mention was made of the infrastructure that most notably the Legion has. There isn't one member without at least one Legion. In the case of my large northern Ontario riding, there are about 18 different legions. They are so well represented throughout our smaller communities, it would be a shame to lose any of that infrastructure. Those buildings are located so conveniently for people, so not only would it be a shame to lose them, but I think it would also be a shame not to better utilize them.

Mention was made of some 57 organizations representing different facets of the military veteran. This is understandable because there's a certain comradeship, given a theatre of operation or similar experiences.

But is it generally accepted by veterans at the legions that if the federal government—and I know this is a recommendation that hopefully we'll discuss this fall, as we continue this study—were interested in finding ways with the legions in particular, because of the buildings, and other organizations to deliver programs to help disabled veterans, injured veterans, whether there are physical or mental injuries, such as operational stress injury, PTSD...? Do you think there's any merit in at least looking at the possibility of helping the legions help the federal government help veterans in a more proactive way by delivering some programs?

I don't want to get into what those could be—that's to be discussed—but it might be an opportunity for the legions to become a contractor, to receive some income to help the federal government deliver to veterans certain kinds of programs. Is there any merit in that at all?

It might maintain the buildings. At the same time, because the legions are so close to the communities, their ability to deliver might be well beyond the ability of the federal government to deliver any other way.

[Ray Kokkonen]

It's a rather big question with a number of immediate implications.

In the transcripts of Mr. Allard's appearance he mentioned a number of times that the Legion does not receive any government funding. I think this sort of an arrangement would automatically assume that there would be some sort of funding.

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

Basically on a fee-for-service basis.

[Ray Kokkonen]

Secondly, it would clearly indicate a preference or an anointing of the Legion as the organization by the government, and it would almost set the course for the establishment of some sort of an umbrella organization under the auspices of the Legion, which would not necessarily receive favourable response from some of the other organizers. I'm not even expressing an opinion here. I'm only stating those things that come to mind as part of that question.

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

That's what I wanted to find out, what the reactions might be. Maybe it would work, maybe it wouldn't. The only way to find out is to ask people, so I appreciate your comments.

Should such an idea be pursued, is there any way that some umbrella organization, again so that maybe one organization isn't picked out among the rest...? Is there any way that the federal government could use existing infrastructure? Is there any way that the valuable infrastructure of people as well as buildings—there are networks of people too—could be used to deliver health services, whether it's peer counselling, whether it's just a network of support, or information? Is there any way imaginable for that to happen with the cooperation of the various veterans organizations and the government working together? Not that the federal government would be.... It would be simply, as I would see it, a contract for services. The organizations aren't buying into government policy outside the specific program being delivered.

I'm trying to think of an example. From time to time you'll see, say, the YMCA take on a program in the area of health, say health promotion, or take on an initiative of a province, for example, to promote a certain health aspect of fitness. So is there any potential at all, or would we be whistling in the wind? I'm going to ask the others as well, as time goes by, but your opinions would be valued.

[Ray Kokkonen]

I think there is a degree of potential there. Again, I go back to the other possible problem areas that I pointed out earlier.

I think it would be a very admirable thing and an ideal thing to establish some sort of a network, which does not exist at the moment. There is a sort of rudimentary assistance network out there in terms of giving advice and perhaps helping veterans solve health problems, or at least in accessing agencies that can solve those health problems. The service officers of the Legion are an example of that, and that is a national network.

For instance, our own organization, the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association, follows that model. We also have service officers. However, quite often, rather than being of an assisting nature to have access to health services, we usually like to find lawyers who will take an advocacy role with a veteran who is having problems accessing, so it's not quite the same thing. But there are networks out there already of some sort.

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

Thank you, Mr. Kokkonen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Thank you very much, Mr. St. Denis.

Now on to Mrs. Hinton for five minutes.

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

Thank you.

I think perhaps your having served as a witness previously and having served as a witness again today, you can see that the committee has interests in a great variety of things, and that may be one of the reasons it's not always right on target as to what it is we're trying to deal with. But what we're trying to deal with right now is improvements to the VIP program and the health care benefits.

So I'm going to give you an opportunity, and I recognize that you seem to have been kind of dropped into this position today. I apologize for that. But I would like to give you an opportunity to maybe relay any kind of feedback you've had from members of your organization regarding what their needs might be in terms of the VIP program, because you did say that they run from 55 to 70. Also, you may want to talk about what you personally or what your association feels would be improvements to the health care system.

Those are two things I'd like to give you the opportunity to perhaps respond to.

[Ray Kokkonen]

Certainly, to answer the second one first, because I'm not familiar enough with the system, I don't know what improvements could be made. I don't know.

But touching on the first one, certainly from general conversation with my fellow members, the feeling is quite clear that if you served your country in a setting that is recognized as operational in some sense, then you should have the same rights of access to care and services that war service people do—because what actually is the difference?

However, this raises the question of “a veteran is a veteran is a veteran”. Does the same thing then apply to someone who served in Gagetown for three years and then got out, but then had a vehicle accident, or whatever, with a neck injury? How do those relate?

I'm not sure where the boundary would be drawn there, once that person gets out of the Canadian Forces system and becomes a veteran. I don't have an answer on what should be done with that person.

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

Given your experience as a peacekeeper—and you did mention a number of the countries you'd served in, including Germany and Cyprus.... I recognize that each peacekeeping mission is a little bit different, but there's a myth out there that seems to be perpetuated, which I have done my utmost to kill, that peacekeeping missions are somehow safe and there's no fear of any harm coming to a peacekeeper. The average person in the general public, when they think of a peacekeeper, thinks of a person who's handing out candy or doing goodwill sorts of things.

My experience, from what I've learned, not only from this committee but also from four years of being heavily involved with veterans is that peacekeeping missions are oftentimes far more dangerous than actual combat missions, because you never know who's coming at you, and from where, and you have a very limited mandate as to how you can respond.

So I'd just like to give you an opportunity to perhaps explain to the public at large the dangers of being a peacekeeper, because it isn't all roses and handing out candy; it's a very dangerous thing to be doing. So I'll just give you an opportunity to elaborate, if you wish.

[Ray Kokkonen]

I think the psychological perspective is that because there are less occurrences of the types of things that go on in Afghanistan, the unexpected actually cause more tension, in some sense. It's not to say that if you're driving in a LAV down a road in Afghanistan you're not under tension as well, clearly.

I have never been in a firefight as a peacekeeper, which seems to be a common occurrence in Afghanistan, and it certainly was during World War II. But I was mortared as a peacekeeper when I visited UNIFIL on the Lebanese border, at the time I was serving in Egypt. I actually was mortared when I was in Camp Pearson. So those things happen.

I don't in any way try to compare peacekeeping or peacemaking missions with what is clearly a war situation—whether it's called that or not in Afghanistan—and where there is an actual hostile interface of fire all the time. Peacekeeping operations are not normally like that. But then again, Bosnia was another situation where there were open firefights—

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

Or Rwanda. There were all kinds of them, yes.

[Ray Kokkonen]

Yes, there were. Now, Rwanda was a peacekeeping mission. Unfortunately, there really was no chance for any response from the United Nations people there.

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

I can't imagine your frustrations at those situations.

The chair is telling me my time is up, so thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Than you, Mrs. Hinton.

Now on to Mr. Stoffer, with the NDP, for five minutes.

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

I'm fine, Mr. Chairman. If someone else would like to take up the time, I'm fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Okay.

Mrs. Hinton, do you wish to continue with your line of questions?

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

I will pass to Mr. Shipley.

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

And we're done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

All right.

Mr. Sweet.

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

Fini.