;

SVET Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, May 5, 2004

1535

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.))

Mr. David Cotter (As Individual)

1540

1545

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder)

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, CPC)

Mr. James Cotter (As Individual)

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

1550

Mr. James Cotter

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

Mr. James Cotter

Mr. David Cotter

1555

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder)

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, CPC)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder)

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Mr. David Cotter

Mr. Claude Bachand

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder)

Mr. David Cotter

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. James Cotter

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. James Cotter

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. James Cotter

1600

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. James Cotter

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. James Cotter

Mr. David Cotter

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder)

Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.)

1605

Mr. James Cotter

Mr. John O'Reilly

Mr. James Cotter

Mr. John O'Reilly

Mr. James Cotter

Mr. John O'Reilly

Mr. James Cotter

1610

Mr. John O'Reilly

Mr. James Cotter

Mr. John O'Reilly

Mr. David Cotter

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder)

Hon. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP)

1615

Mr. James Cotter

Hon. Bill Blaikie

Mr. James Cotter

Hon. Bill Blaikie

Mr. James Cotter

Hon. Bill Blaikie

Mr. James Cotter

Mr. David Cotter

Hon. Bill Blaikie

Mr. David Cotter

Hon. Bill Blaikie

Mr. David Cotter

Mr. James Cotter

Hon. Bill Blaikie

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder)

Mr. Rick Casson

Mr. James Cotter

Mr. Rick Casson

1620

Mr. James Cotter

Mr. Rick Casson

Mr. James Cotter

Mr. Rick Casson

Mr. James Cotter

Mr. Rick Casson

Mr. James Cotter

Mr. Rick Casson

Mr. David Cotter

Mr. Rick Casson

Mr. James Cotter

Mr. Rick Casson

Mr. James Cotter

1625

Mr. David Cotter

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder)

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. James Cotter

Mr. David Cotter

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. James Cotter

Mr. Claude Bachand

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder)

Mr. John O'Reilly

1630

Mr. James Cotter

Mr. John O'Reilly

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder)

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder)

Mr. James Cotter

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder)

1640

Mr. André Marin (Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Forces)

1645

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder)

Mr. Rick Casson

Mr. André Marin

1650

Mr. Rick Casson

Mr. André Marin

Mr. Rick Casson

Mr. André Marin

Mr. Rick Casson

Mr. André Marin

Mr. Rick Casson

Mr. André Marin

1655

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder)

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. André Marin

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. André Marin

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. André Marin

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. André Marin

1700

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. André Marin

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. André Marin

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. André Marin

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. André Marin

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. André Marin

Mr. Claude Bachand

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder)

Mr. John O'Reilly

1705

Mr. André Marin

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder)

Mr. John O'Reilly

Mr. André Marin

1710

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder)

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

Mr. André Marin

1715

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

Mr. André Marin

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder)

Mr. John O'Reilly

Mr. André Marin

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder)

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. André Marin

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. André Marin

1720

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. André Marin

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. André Marin

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. André Marin

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. André Marin

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. André Marin

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. André Marin

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. André Marin

1725

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. André Marin

Mr. Claude Bachand

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder)

CANADA

Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs

NUMBER 004

3rd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, May 5, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1535)

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.)): I'd like to call this meeting to order.

We have appearing in front of us today James Cotter, who is a Korean war veteran--I'm pleased to meet you, sir--and his son David. The floor is yours.

Mr. David Cotter (As Individual): I have a statement. It will take about 10 minutes to read, and then Dad will answer any questions you have. I'm reading this as if it were from my father.

I'd like to thank this committee for agreeing to see me today. I hope the information in my presentation proves helpful to you in your deliberations. Korean veterans are dying from many terrible diseases and disorders as a direct result of their service and have waited far too long for recognition. As committed public representatives and champions of veterans' causes, I hope you will be able to help.

Recently Canadian veterans of World War II who were used a guinea pigs at Camp Suffield were recognized and received compensation for their exposure to harmful chemicals. The list of illnesses they suffer, provided by military ombudsman André Marin, includes several types of cancer, sexual dysfunction, asthma, chronic bronchitis, emphysema and other respiratory problems, eye problems, psychological disorders, leukemia, and reproductive dysfunction. The following is as a result of a recently published Department of Veterans Affairs study in Australia regarding the mortality of Australian Korea veterans, with whom I served. Overall, Korean war veterans experienced a 21% higher mortality rate than the Australian male population. These are the elevated mortality rates for specific causes of death, and they relate to André Marin's findings.

The death rate for diseases of the circulatory system was elevated by 13%, with heart disease elevated by 10%, and stroke by 17%. The death rate from cancer was elevated by 31%. The death rate from all external causes was elevated by 37%, with suicides elevated by 31%. The death rate from respiratory diseases was elevated by 32%, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was elevated by 49%. Other respiratory diseases were elevated by 45%, and the death rate from all digestive diseases was elevated by 35%.

It is important for you to know that the Canadian government has already recognized a similar phenomenon among Canadian Korea veterans. In the early 1990s the Senate investigated what they then called early death syndrome among Korea vets. At the time they found that we had a higher mortality rate than the general population, though they were unable to establish a causal link. I have, with certainty, found that causal link. It is consistent, long-term exposure to massive amounts of pesticides and other harmful chemicals while serving in Korea. I realize that Veterans Affairs regularly denies pensions in cases of this nature, because they claim, as former Minister Pagtakhan said in a CBC interview, “there is no record of prolonged exposure to toxic substances.” I want this committee to know that this is simply and obviously untrue.

Starting with the Canadian military's Handbook of Army Health, issued in 1950, the use of hazardous chemicals, including DDT, Lindane, hexachlorobenzene, and benzene-hexachloride were prescribed for pest reduction. Given that I received a pension from Veterans Affairs for multiple chemical sensitivity based on this information, there can be no argument that there was not exposure to these substances. Any such claim seems to be political expediency on the part of Veterans Affairs, an obvious attempt to confuse the issue and save money, hoping veterans will die before we receive pensions--deny until they die.

I have put together a package that will clearly demonstrate that Canadian soldiers in Korea were exposed to these harmful chemicals and that these chemicals are the cause of many terrible and debilitating diseases and death. We are sick and dying and most definitely deserve expediency in applications for disability pensions, compensation, and any medical treatment that could alleviate our suffering.

To show that the Canadian government, the Government of Ontario, and other credible organizations agree that DDT, hexachlorobenzene, and other pesticides are carcinogens and cause other terrible illnesses, we have the following: a description from the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, a federal government agency, of the harmful effects of DDT and benzene, including the fact that they are carcinogens; an article quoting Johanne Gélinas, the federal environment commissioner, to the effect that pesticides have been linked to lung disease, reproductive problems, birth defects, cancers, developmental disorders, allergic reactions, lowered resistance to diseases, and other illnesses; an article from Ontario showing that Worker's Compensation and the occupational health clinics for Ontario agree that benzene, to which we were exposed, is a known carcinogen; a position paper for the Canadian Associationof Physicians for the Environment indicating the biological effects of DDT exposure; a recent release from the Ontario College of Family Physicians indicating that pesticides are too harmful to use in any form and that exposure to pesticides causes brain cancer, prostate cancer, kidney cancer, pancreatic cancer, and leukemia, among many other acute illnesses; and a list from OHIP that indicates the 53 different diseases and disorders with which I have been diagnosed in a seven-year period from 1987 to 1994.

¹ (1540)

Further, to indicate that the Canadian army exposed troops to DDT, benzene hexacholoride, and other pesticides, I have the following: a copy of four pages from the Canadian Military Handbook of Army Health, issued in 1950, indicating that Canadian soldiers and their clothing should be sprayed with DDT and benzene hexacholoride, clearly indicating exposure; a letter from Paul Marsden, archivist for the military section of the government archives division, stating that DDT was used as a pesticide on soldiers while serving in Korea; a letter from Private John Aube indicating that Canadian soldiers, under orders, sprayed their sleeping bags with DDT powder while serving in Korea from 1951 to 1952; a letter from Corporal Don Scrivens, deceased, attesting that the photos he provided showed Canadian troops of the 3rd Battalion Royal Canadian Regiment spraying themselves with pesticide for lice and ticks in 1953 while serving in Korea; a letter from Rod Carew RCAF, retired, indicating that he saw various aircraft spraying for mosquitoes to a point where the pesticides could be smelled by the troops on the ground; and spraying orders from the U.S. 8th Army indicating that there was to be spraying of forward combat and rear areas with toxic insecticides issued in 1951--the Canadian army in Korea served as part of the 1st Commonwealth Division and was attached to the U.S. 8th Army.

Of course, I will swear that I was repeatedly exposed through direct spraying and fumigating regularly of my bunker, clothes, sleeping kit, and mess hall on a regular and ongoing basis. In fact, I was repeatedly stripped to the waist and sprayed with a mixture of DDT and kerosene throughout my time in Korea.

A few more items that I think are of interest are testimony and correspondence from the director of the Post-Deployment Regional Health Clinic, Lieutenant-Colonel Tim Cook of the Canadian Armed Forces. First, in testimony to the Croatia board of inquiry, Dr. Cook indicated that he treated a Korea veteran, indicating Jim Cotter, and that the Korea veteran had been exposed to a lot of pesticide use during his time in Korea. There's an e-mail from Dr. Cook indicating that Jim Cotter should be receiving treatment for multiple conditions as a veteran receiving a pension for multiple chemical sensitivity. There's another e-mail from Dr. Cook indicating that Jim Cotter and other Korean war veterans were exposed to DDT and other pesticides while serving in Korea. Finally, and most unfortunately, there's an e-mail from Dr. Cook stating that Veterans Affairs acknowledged that it was an oversight on their part to award Jim Cotter a pension for multiple chemical sensitivity and that they are unlikely to award a similar pension again in the future. This appears to me to be a clear indication that Veterans Affairs would like to delay legitimate pension requests for other Korea vets.

My argument is clear. The Canadian government, its agencies, the federal environment commissioner, the Ontario College of Family Physicians, and the Ontario Workers Compensation Board indicate that these pesticides are hazardous and known carcinogens. The Canadian government, through the Handbook of Army Health and through the research of one of its archivists, indicates that troops were exposed to these harmful pesticides during their time in Korea. The United States Army ordered the spraying of Canadian soldiers, and retired Canadian soldiers have written that they were sprayed with pesticides during their service. Dr. Tim Cook agrees, and in fact testified to the Croatia board of inquiry that Canadian troops in Korea were exposed to pesticides and that at least one veteran is entitled to a pension as a result. Finally, Canadian veterans of Korea are dying at a far higher rate than that of the general public. Sadly, Veterans Affairs has known about this since the first time I applied for a pension for multiple chemical sensitivity in 1994, and they certainly knew about it after having granted my pension in 1996.

I think my case is absolutely clear and contradicts everything former Minister Pagtakhan said in his interview with CBC in September 2002. In his interview he said there was no evidence of prolonged exposure to pesticides during the Korean War. Canadian government documents and a government archivist and the testimony of Dr. Cook indicate the exact opposite. He also said there is no link between pesticide exposure and illnesses. My evidence indicates the exact opposite, and as a medical doctor, Minister Pagtakhan should be ashamed of making such a nonsensical statement.

I've been diagnosed with every single one of the illnesses described in the ombudsman's report on the Suffield soldiers. So have many other Korea vets. It is time for VAC, the Canadian army, and government to give their collective heads a shake. We were repeatedly exposed to chemical agents that cause these illnesses, and my pension for MCS from Veterans Affairs is a clear and concise admission that not only was I exposed to this toxic soup, but this exposure caused the above-noted illnesses.

¹ (1545)

There can be no explanation other than that I and 20,000 other Canadian soldiers who served in Korea were repeatedly exposed to these harmful chemicals. Given the continuing denials of successive ministers of Veterans Affairs, I can only assume that this is a deliberate attempt to cover up our exposure and subsequent illnesses. I've sent repeated letters about this issue to successive prime ministers and ministers of Defence and Veterans Affairs since 1996. I have been ignored or sent form letters indicating that the minister received my letter and truly appreciated my input. Their follow-up has been non-existent. My input has been ignored.

I've had enough of the obfuscation, denials, and attempts to cover up this most unbelievable of indignities. We were healthy young men when we left for Korea. We risked our lives for this country, and we came home sick. The federal government ignores our pleas for help. It's time for Veterans Affairs to recognize the harm suffered by Canadian soldiers while serving in Korea and compensate them as they compensated those exposed to chemical agents in World War II.

The following is a list of my demands of Veterans Affairs.

First, every living Korean veteran should be notified that they were exposed to toxic substances during their service and that they should be examined by an environmental specialist as soon as possible.

Every Canadian veteran of Korea suffering from the above-noted illnesses should immediately receive full medical coverage from Veterans Affairs.

Based on the level of disability, pensions should be awarded. The burden of proof for these pensions should follow the VAC requirement that veterans applying for pensions be given the benefit of the doubt. While there should be fair scrutiny of every claim, pensions should be given without an inordinate burden being placed on the petitioner.

VAC should immediately conduct a study similar to the mortality study of Australian Korea veterans. The study should not take seven years, as it did in Australia, because we'll all be dead by then. I am among the youngest to serve in Korea, and I'm 71.

Every veteran of Korea suffering from exposure to chemical agents while serving with the Canadian army should be compensated.

The Canadian government should without delay offer an apology to every single veteran of the Korean conflict, not only for exposing us to deadly chemicals but for knowing about it for at least the last 10 years and doing nothing about it.

The inaction of the Canadian government, VAC, and the Canadian army for the last ten years borders on the criminal. Letting thousands of men suffer for fear of losing face or for political or financial expediency is nothing short of an abrogation of their duty to Canadian veterans. In the last few years I've watched the guys I served with die, more often than not far too young. They died of cancer, heart disease, liver disease, terrible painful deaths as a result of serving their country. My friend Don Scrivens died of kidney disease last fall. He died alone in a small shack with no heat or electricity. VAC had repeatedly denied him a pension for years. They wouldn't even pay for his mileage so he could afford to drive to North Bay for the medical treatment he needed.

I simply can't sit back and watch Veterans Affairs abuse veterans any longer. It is time for the Canadian government to act, as they have in the case of the veterans exposed to chemical agents during World War II. It is time for you to treat us with the respect and dignity we deserve and earned.

Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): Thank you very much, David.

We'll now go to the official opposition, the Conservative Party, for seven minutes.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, CPC): First and foremost, I have to say I agree with you. I noted your article in the National Post today. It stated: “I simply can't sit back and watch Veterans Affairs abuse veterans any longer. It's time for you to treat us with the respect and dignity we deserve.” It talks about how your clothes were sprayed, your beds were sprayed, and your sleeping kit was sprayed. I'm horrified to think this was happening to you, Mr. Cotter, and yet we have not done anything to assist you.

Having spoken with you about all the problems you have had, I really am horrified to think there are so many more. How many Korean war vets do you think we have out there now, Mr. Cotter?

Mr. James Cotter (As Individual): There are probably about 14,000 left. There were 26,971 originally.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I feel very strongly that our committee, Mr. Chairman, should be looking into this for them. In British Columbia, as you know, there are those who were subjected in Suffield to the mustard gas, and we have finally been able to resolve that. We owe it to these people to look after them as well.

In Australia it took seven years before they completed their study. Did they get the proper recognition, proper pensions, and everything after that length of time?

¹ (1550)

Mr. James Cotter: The study has just come out. I talked to Colonel Limburg down there all the time. He's a researcher for the Korea Veterans Association. Some of my material has been used in the report that they produced.

Everybody takes so much time to do anything. The last time I was at a meeting about this was in 1997, and that was over here at 66 Slater Street. One of the things they said then was, if we knew anybody who was desperate and needed a pension or medical treatment, we should put their names in and DVA has agreed to fast-track the applications.

I put in two names, Don Scrivens and Jim Dunnet. Jim Dunnet died two weeks later, and David told you what happened to Don Scrivens. They had done nothing. He had applied for a pension before he died. Jim's wife, Joan Dunnet, applied for a widow's pension after he died and she hasn't got a thing yet. It's been seven years. So this is the process.

Some of the pensions that I got--and I get 12--took me five years to get.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Is that right?

Mr. James Cotter: People can't wait that long. If you're sick, you need help right now. When I started talking to DVA, one of the things they said was, oh, we look after our clients. I said, well, what's a client, and they said, that's a person who gets a pension. I think they've changed that now, but they still don't help veterans. If you go to the Department of Veterans Affairs and go through that bureaucracy, it's a terrible thing.

DVA sent me to St. Catharines to a psychologist or psychiatrist, and there's part of a report that's here; DVA has the rest of it. They didn't like it, so they didn't use it, but David will read you some of what she said.

Mr. David Cotter: This is a psychologist DVA sent my dad to. These were part of her findings:

“His major overriding problem that continues to colour his approach to his life is post-traumatic stress disorder. The nature of war and its impact on soldiers and the diagnosis of his problems did not really become well understood until Vietnam veterans were studied. There was a particularly high number of psychiatric casualties because of the rate of killings in the war by the Americans and the poor reception from their fellow citizens upon their return home.

“Mr. Cotter's post-traumatic stress disorder has been compounded not only by the lack of understanding of the medical profession for years, but also by the problems in dealing with the bureaucracy of Veterans Affairs. A trusting man with an innocent expectation of being hurt and helped by the institutions that he interacts with, the failure to be heard is perceived as a breach of trust. Failure to be heard is interpreted as denial and can result in behaviour required to maintain the problem in order to be better heard. The escalation of this behaviour and threats against Veterans Affairs has resulted from this breach of trust and frustration in his ability to be heard. This is also compounded by the continuing problem that many individuals find psychiatric diagnosis unacceptable.

“Even though Mr. Cotter has concurred with these findings, he is not willing to accept stress as a reason for his continued problems, even though his dealings with Veterans Affairs has exacerbated that stress.”

¹ (1555)

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Thank you very much.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): Thank you.

Mr. Casson, we'll get to you in the second round.

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, CPC): Okay, sure.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): We'll go on now to Bloc Québécois.

Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): I think you'll need your translation device.

Mr. David Cotter: I hope you'll pardon me, but my Dad wears hearing aids and he can't wear it.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Okay, fine.

What do you suggest?

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): David can translate for his father. We can do it that way.

Mr. David Cotter: Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: How old was Mr. Cotter when he took part in the Korean War? Did he serve during the entire war?

[English]

Mr. James Cotter: I was 17 years and six months old when I joined the army, which was in the fall of 1950. I served in Korea in 1952 and 1953.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Earlier, you mentioned people who systematically had to spray DDT on themselves, and on their sleeping bags and so on. Were those the orders? Did all troops spray themselves in this fashion?

[English]

Mr. James Cotter: Yes, we were ordered to do it. There used to be people who sprayed the bunkers and stuff. We were supposed to do our own sleeping bags, but they sprayed us. The way they went about it is in the four pages from the Handbook of Army Health. Sometimes in the summertime, you perhaps wouldn't have a shirt on, and they would spray your bare skin.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: You joined at the age of 17 and a half, in 1950, and served in 1952 and 1953. Let's say you were about 20 at the time. Did your symptoms appear when you came back from the Korean War, or did you already experience symptoms during your service in Korea?

[English]

Mr. James Cotter: I didn't know the symptoms when I was in Korea, but I had symptoms when I came home. I have a notarized letter from my mother stating that I was too sick to work. I was too sick to work when I came home.

Then I got a job at Atomic Energy of Canada. They did blood tests on me and the biomarkers in my blood showed a pre-leukemic condition and anemia. Medical doctors will tell you that once you have anemia, you're open to any disease known to man.

My teeth all rotted, but I don't think it's because I didn't have good teeth. The rest of my family, my mother, siblings, and father, had good teeth. My mother is 95 years old and lives in a nursing home in Pembroke. She has had one cavity in her life.

º (1600)

Mr. Claude Bachand: She had good teeth.

[Translation]

You say that 14,000 people who served during the Korean War are still alive. You were supposed to get together when you came back. Is this quite universal? Did all the troops in your section or regiment who took part in the Korean War experience symptoms like yours, or other symptoms that could be associated with DDT exposure?

[English]

Mr. James Cotter: I couldn't say that, because at that time my mother and dad lived in Deep River and I went home and stayed there for a while, and I was the only veteran I knew there then. Now, since then I have learned of other people who have the same symptoms as I do.

One of the things I had was a severe rash, and this is shown in my records from AECL. They thought it was poison ivy, but if you go to the Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology, it tells you that chlorine products will cause chloracne, which is a rash, and I've had that since I came back from Korea. I had my knee operated on about four or five years ago--I had my knee replaced--and I had a rash for about a year and a half or two years after they replaced my knee.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Have people gotten together? When a number of people experience some kind of collective trauma or injury, there are certainly groups who can help them not only to regain morale, but also to establish an action plan. For example, people come together to file a class action suit. I would like to know whether you have formed such a group of you at present, or if you are thinking of establishing a group of Korean war veterans with illnesses like yours. What do you plan to do? If you receive no help from Veterans Affairs, are you considering a class action suit against the government?

[English]

Mr. James Cotter: Well, a court challenge...yes, I did, and I had the lawyer all ready and he went through my files and he said, I'd have fun in court with a case like this. But, he said, you have to go through the pension process first; then, if you don't get a pension, we'll do it.

Now, the reason I was able to do this was that when I came back from Korea, even before I was discharged from the army, I went to work at AECL in Chalk River. When you go to work there, they do a blood count on you, all your blood work, and they said....

Mr. David Cotter: Sorry; I'll finish this for him.

The results showed he had been chemically poisoned, and he is one of the few veterans who is lucky enough to have returned from Korea and gotten the medical workup he needed to be able to prove exposure from while he was in Korea. The problem is that there are 14,000 other guys who didn't know the reason for their illnesses and don't have the type of medical records my dad has.

There is a Korea Veterans Association, and while they are an active social group, they are not particularly active in this issue.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): Mr. O'Reilly, for seven minutes.

Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much, Mr. Cotter, for coming. I appreciate hearing your story.

It's always interesting to me, because I have two friends who returned from Korea; I won't mention their names, but they live in my riding, in Lindsay, Ontario. They have the flashbacks that are part of post-traumatic stress syndrome, which we all suffer at some time or other in a small amount if we're subjected to very horrific circumstances. The worst they have are flashbacks they can't control and that sometimes leave them very emotionally drained. I work on the ambulance, so I have some idea of how that does affect you.

I recently worked with the Korean war veterans association in my riding--I think it's number 53--to establish a Korean war veterans monument in Lindsay and so forth. They brought down a group of Korean veterans from the Sunnybrook Hospital in Toronto, who are really well taken care of and who are all at certain degrees of injury and so forth.

I wondered, is there no association in your area or no contact with that Korean war veterans group? They seem to advocate very quickly for the people in my area who've had problems. I just wondered if in your area there isn't such an association or there's--

º (1605)

Mr. James Cotter: Yes, we have a Korea Veterans Association; I think we have 13 members. Unless this affects you directly and you know about it, they're not as anxious to work on it as if it was affecting them also.

You talked about flashbacks. I have not had a good night's sleep since I came back from Korea; I have nightmares all the time. When you see a 25-pounder firing at night, you can tell it's a 25-pounder because of the silhouette from the light when the gun fires; the I-5s are the same. Almost every night I see those guns firing. There's a slit trench there, and there are arms and legs and body parts sticking out of it, partly covered with sand and everything. That's my family there.

Mr. John O'Reilly: Did I hear you say something about the number 12, that you have 12 pensions or something? Is that what you said?

Mr. James Cotter: I'm pensioned for 12 conditions.

Mr. John O'Reilly: Oh, I was wondering how you could get 12 pensions; I misunderstood that. You knew something I didn't.

Mr. James Cotter: It's hard enough to get one.

Mr. John O'Reilly: Yes, that's what I was going to say.

Do you think, then, from the analysis that was given to you, that they felt post-traumatic stress syndrome was your biggest problem? I think we're all aware that if the spraying of chemicals, DDT, mustard gas, and all that hurts the environment, it certainly hurts the people in the environment; I don't think anybody has a dispute with that. I just don't know how far you got with the medical community on that analysis.

I wonder about what evidence Dr. Pagtakhan would have that would cause him to think differently from that. Because he is a teaching medical doctor, you'd think he'd have a pretty good idea of that, so I just question that.

Mr. James Cotter: I've been to some pretty knowledgeable doctors; one is a nuclear physician at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, and another is a nuclear physician at a medical school at the University of California. These people say they can do a brain SPECT scan on a person and tell exactly what the matter is with them. They say they can tell if a person is doing heroin or if they're doing alcohol; they can even tell if a woman has a breast implant without asking her. Now, they did one of those SPECT scans on me, and they said I had an abnormal study and it was consistent with neurotoxicity.

These are some of my medical records, and each one of these is a disease. These have been correlated between medical doctors' diagnoses and chemical fact sheets. Now, this isn't me saying this; it's government organizations, university medical schools, and prestigious doctors. Even Dr. Tim Cook said yes, I was chemically poisoned in Korea. Now, he's the director of the Gulf War Clinic; he's a medical doctor.

º (1610)

Mr. John O'Reilly: On what do you base the refusal, then, of Veterans Affairs? Do you think there's some problem with Veterans Affairs we don't know about that you can enlighten us on as to what--

Mr. James Cotter: It's the same as with the people at Suffield; they held off on that for as long as they could. It's the same thing as with the people in the merchant navy. Who is more entitled to a pension than somebody who sat out there on the ocean like a sitting duck? It wasn't that bad for us; we had a place to hide.

Mr. John O'Reilly: Well, this committee was part of making sure the merchant mariners did receive a pension. That was under George Baker. There were people on this committee--Elsie was on it, and so forth--who did a lot of work on that, so we're well aware of it. Hopefully, we can do something to help you. We'll certainly work on it. I think we all commit to that by being here.

Mr. David Cotter: My dad doesn't need any help. My dad has 100% pension. It's through his diligence, his effort, and the documentation that he has that he has a pension and he's being well cared for. The problem is that there are 14,000 other sick men who don't have pensions and who are dying in poverty in shacks in Sundridge, Ontario, without the money to go to North Bay and get the treatment they need for kidney cancer.

Those are the people we're here for today.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): Okay, thank you.

We'll move on now to Mr. Blaikie, NDP, for seven minutes.

Hon. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to begin by expressing my thanks to Mr. Cotter and to his son David for being here today, and as was just pointed out, for being here not on your own behalf but on behalf of all your comrades in the Korean War, many of whom may suffer from similar conditions and aren't getting the kind of treatment from Veterans Affairs that you and I and I presume many of the people on this committee think they should be getting.

I don't point at any political party or government; it's just the nature of Veterans Affairs. I've been an MP for 25 years, and it just seems that they don't get around to doing things until there's only a small number of people left who qualify for the benefit.

If I were a real cynic, I'd say you guys are too young yet. Instead of 14,000 of you, you have to get it down to 5,000 before they'll regard it as economical to do anything for you. With the merchant marine it took until...you know, the merchant marine happened in the 1940s; you guys suffered these things in the 1950s. So maybe by the year 2012, there'll be few enough of you left that the government of that day will finally come around.

It's a terribly cynical thing to say, but it sometimes just seems that's the way it is with so many of these things having to do with veterans. When I hear your story, I find it infuriating.

I wonder, Mr. Cotter or David, if you could expand on why you think it is that the Korea Veterans Association hasn't been more active on this. Again, as I say, I've been paying attention to veterans' issues for a long time. Maybe I just missed it, but this is really the first time it has come to my attention to the same degree.

There's a difference from Suffield and the mustard gas. When the government was exposing people to mustard gas, they knew mustard gas was a bad thing. When it comes to DDT and spraying people, delousing and everything, it's not like anybody's accusing them of knowingly exposing people to bad substances at that time. You could say that about mustard gas, but.... So I don't know why the government or whoever it is feels so guilty that they can't fess up. Nobody knew anything about DDT back then, so it's not as if anybody's at fault. It's just the fact that people were exposed to this kind of thing and they have these conditions, and now something should be done about it.

I wonder why you think it is that the Korea Veterans Association.... I mean, I think they're more than a social club; they've been active on a number of issues. Obviously they haven't been as active on this issue as you think they should be. I wonder if you would say why.

Have you made representations to them and they're not interested, or what's the story there?

º (1615)

Mr. James Cotter: Yes, I have. I think it was last fall that there was a story on the CBC morning news. I was on there. Joan Dunnet was on, and Minister Pagtakhan was on. One of the things he said to me was, “If you can prove this, I'll do something about it”. They asked the president of the Korea Veterans Association what he thought about what the minister said, and he said, “Well, I can't say it on TV”. They said, “Well, what do you think about it?” He said, “It's bullshit”. That's what he thought of the minister's statement.

Now, if he's going to say to me, “If you can prove it, I'll do something about it”, why doesn't he let me prove it? I'm willing to go before anybody with my medical and military records.

Hon. Bill Blaikie: Are you aware of the Korea Veterans Association ever making a presentation to the government, a representation to the minister or anybody on this issue, making the same argument as you're making?

Mr. James Cotter: Yes.

Hon. Bill Blaikie: They have.

Mr. James Cotter: Yes.

Hon. Bill Blaikie: That's what I wanted to know. It would seem odd to me if they hadn't.

Mr. James Cotter: I've done it, and there were a large number of people there. Cliff Chadderton and Les Peate were there. I asked for the same thing then as I'm asking for now--and I have the minutes of the meeting.

Mr. David Cotter: In that meeting, Veterans Affairs committed to a study of Korean veterans to determine whether or not there was any veracity to this claim. Shortly thereafter, my dad got a letter saying they had studied 500 vets and there didn't seem to be anything.

The other thing they said, though, is that they were waiting for the results of what was to be the study based on the Australian study, because the Australian soldiers and the Canadian soldiers both served with the 1st Commonwealth and were exposed to the same conditions. So at the time they told my dad and the KVA that they were waiting for the results of this study that I was quoting from today.

Hon. Bill Blaikie: That study is out now.

Mr. David Cotter: It's out, as of a few weeks ago, and it shows a very high mortality rate.

Hon. Bill Blaikie: This is basically new information; at least this study is.

Mr. David Cotter: Yes.

Mr. James Cotter: Colonel Allan Limburg, who is the researcher for the KVA in Australia, sent me a fax before the report came out to tell me it was coming out and where to find it on the Internet. We have done a lot work together. He's too sick to do it anymore. He can't do it.

Ashley Cunningham-Boothe in Britain, who was an author, is dead also. I've been written up in hardcover books, magazines, newspapers, and I've been on television and radio, and I say the same thing all the time: they are not helping Canadian Korean War veterans.

Hon. Bill Blaikie: Well, they should. I hope as a committee we'll be able to help that process along at some point.

Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.

We'll now move to the second round. Mr. Casson, five minutes.

Mr. Rick Casson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you both for coming. You make a great team, Mr. Cotter, you and your son. Even through the translation process you did a pretty good job.

Was this spraying done only while you were in Korea?

Mr. James Cotter: They sprayed us in Japan, too.

Mr. Rick Casson: The reason for doing it was spread of disease?

º (1620)

Mr. James Cotter: That's right, especially Manchurian fever.

Mr. Rick Casson: As far as you are aware, are you the only Korean veteran to receive compensation from Veterans Affairs?

Mr. James Cotter: For this specific condition of multiple chemical sensitivity, yes. The letter from Major Cook, the director of the Gulf War Clinic, states that.

Mr. Rick Casson: Veterans Affairs has studied your case, accepted the evidence that you gave them, that you were exposed to chemicals from the spraying in Korea, and they have given you a pension.

Mr. James Cotter: Yes.

Mr. Rick Casson: Have they ever apologized to you for what they've done? That's one of the things you asked for.

Mr. James Cotter: Last spring one of the counsellors from the North Bay office was at our house. He said they had used me shabbily in the past, but that this was over now. I haven't seen any difference.

Mr. Rick Casson: So is it just the fact that the other veterans have not been able to present their case? They didn't have that documentation that you had when you went to get the job at Atomic Energy--you were tested, and they proved it right then. So you had that document to show that you were suffering from this toxic poison, and nobody else has been able to do that?

Mr. David Cotter: In fact, we've been to Veterans Affairs hearings for other veterans who are applying for similar pensions. We brought my dad's evidence to try to show a link, and in each of the cases they were turned down because it wasn't directly and specifically their medical evidence. Before any of them got to the end of their appeal process, they died. So they simply haven't been able to make the final case.

Mr. Rick Casson: Has there been any denial by the government that they did this, that there was spraying going on, and that it was the chemicals that you suggested?

Mr. James Cotter: The Minister of Veterans Affairs on that TV program last year said there was no conclusive evidence that we were sprayed. There's a lot of evidence that we were sprayed. That's the only one who ever said to me there's a doubt, because the military knows that you're sprayed. They're the ones who are doing the spraying.

Mr. Rick Casson: The different countries, the Australian study--from what you're aware of, were you mixed together with your troops? Were you separated? Was it the Canadians and the Australians who were sprayed or did everybody...? Or how did this function happen over there?

Mr. James Cotter: As far as I know, it was everybody, because the Australians, the New Zealanders, the British, and the Americans all have the same problems.

When you're trying to get something like this recognized, it takes a lot of research and everything and a lot of people to do it. Korea is all hills. Bunkers and trenches were dug all around the hills and people were in those trenches and in those bunkers. I've been in a bunker with three other people, dug into the side of a trench, that was about three feet high and maybe five feet wide and six feet long. There were four men in there. You didn't even have room to move. They sprayed those things all the time.

Not only that, when it rains—and you don't put your latrine up on top of the hill, you have to put it down because if you're up there in the morning doing your call to nature and the Chinaman sees you, you're going to be in bad shape—this stuff all washes down the trenches and onto the hills and everything. They had shell casings this size and that long and they'd dig a little hole in the ground and they'd put some stones in there and put that shell casing in there and fill in around it and that's where you'd urinate. It doesn't matter whether it's on top of a bunker or where it is.

º (1625)

Mr. David Cotter: Sir, let me go back to just answer your question specifically.

The Australians, British, and Canadians served with the 1st Commonwealth Division. They were one contiguous army. They were under the command of the 8th U.S. Army, and the 8th U.S. Army is the army that ordered the spraying of all forward combat areas with pesticides, including DDT, and I have a copy of those orders.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): We're going to have to move on.

Mr. Bachand, five minutes please.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: The Library of Parliament Research Branch is still preparing documents for us. These documents refer to pesticides and insecticides. You say that troops in the 8^th U.S. Army sprayed themselves. What did they spray themselves with, and why? Was it to protect themselves against malaria, to kill malaria-bearing insects? Why did they spray themselves?

[English]

Mr. James Cotter: I guess Manchurian fever was the worst one, but they sprayed for lice and ticks and everything. The rats were infected with the lice and ticks so they were spraying for rats as well, to kill rats as well. And that's a brown rat over there. That's not a black one like we have here.

Mr. David Cotter: The amount of spraying that they were doing was enough to kill these brown rats, and they were the size of cats.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: In this document here, we find references to other products, including toxic paint, radon gas and other chemicals used during the war. So during the Korean War, were products other than pesticides used as well, products like radon gas, for military purposes? Could some types of gas have been used by North Koreans to cause illness in troops in the field?

[English]

Mr. James Cotter: Well, there's one article about them finding a platoon of dead North Korean soldiers in odd positions, as if they had died instantly. I never heard of them spraying gas, though. Whether they did or not, I don't know.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: I will conclude by saying that this committee has to push this matter a little further, be it through a motion or otherwise, to support Mr. Cotter and to obtain more evidence. In Mr. Cotter's case, things are very clear. However, if there are 14,000 other soldiers in the same position, I would like to know what their condition is. I imagine that the government has kept those soldiers' medical records. If there is a genuine problem and the government is refusing to pay, we may have to exert some political pressure. Could we pass a motion like the one we passed for widows, saying that the committee unanimously requests that the department conduct a comprehensive investigation, and so on? Is that acceptable?

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): First, Mr. Bachand, we don't have quorum here any more because the NDP has left, but I would imagine the parliamentary secretary for veterans affairs may want to respond to that.

Mr. O'Reilly.

Mr. John O'Reilly: I think that's a good idea, Mr. Chair. I think the committee should get a copy of the Australian report. That's the first thing we should do. We should take a look at it to see if there's something in there that would help us. Certainly, we should have Veterans Affairs officials back to speak with us. I have no problem with that as a friendly suggestion, with or without quorum. We're here to help people.

I think the committee should take that as a direction, to first of all obtain the Australian report and have a look at it, and then to hear from officials at Veterans Affairs. I have some questions for them; I think everyone here does.

º (1630)

Mr. James Cotter: Perhaps I can say something here. I can give you a copy of the report. One of the things it says in the report, though, is that the army had a 31% higher mortality rate than the control group, the navy had a 15% higher mortality rate, and the air force didn't have a higher mortality rate.

Now, one of the things they thought might have caused this was that we drank and smoked too much. When I came home from Korea, my dad and I were going by the hotel one day and he said, “Would you like to stop and have a beer?” And I said, “Sure”. Phil Coyle was the bartender--and he's known me, I guess, since I was born. Dad said, “We'll have two beer, Phil”, and Phil said, “You can have one, Lawrence, but Jim can't. He's too young”.

Mr. John O'Reilly: Our clerks and researchers can get any report we want. That's how they operate, on our direction. I think we should take a look to see if there's an American report also. They did the spraying. There might be something along the lines of what the Americans did to order the spraying, what they used. Looking at the Australian report would be the first step, and then bringing someone from Veterans Affairs here to explain what that is.

Obviously, I can't make a motion because we don't have quorum, but we certainly can take this direction.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): I have the executive summary here, and we'll get the full report off the website. We'll make sure all committee members have it. When the chair is back next week, we'll sit down and discuss the earliest time that we can get the Department of Veterans Affairs to appear in front of us once we've had a chance to research this document.

We'll keep you posted as the committee moves through this.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I think we should also have the national president of the Korea Veterans Association, as well as Cliff Chadderton.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): Okay, that sounds reasonable too.

Committee members, we'll just adjourn for a couple of minutes to be able to switch witnesses.

Jim and David, thank you very much for your presentation. We will look into this in the very near future. Thank you.

Mr. James Cotter: Thank you for listening to us.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): Our pleasure.

º (1633)

º (1637)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): We'll now come back to order.

Colleagues, we have in front of us the National Defence and Canadian Forces ombudsman.

André, and Barbara, welcome.

Barbara, I see that your last name is Finlay; I hope you're no relation to John Finlay.

An hon. member: Oh, oh! That's a good thing.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): Colleagues, the representative from the Royal Canadian Legion, comrade Parks, who is the Dominion president, was unable to be here today. He did submit a very short Canadian Legion position statement on an ombudsman for veterans, and with your permission, I was wondering if I can read it into the record.

Then if you have any comments, Barbara or André, you can make those in your own statements.

The position statement reads:

The Royal Canadian Legion has long considered itself as the advocate and voice of veterans in Canada. It further acknowledges the support of other veterans' associations in promoting the recognition of veterans to government in terms of equitable benefits and the commemoration of their sacrifice. As such, the Legion considers itself as an “Ombudsman for Veterans”. It has established a network of service officers and has implemented the appropriate mechanisms and procedural support to ensure that the cause of veterans is well-defined and substantiated to the Government of Canada. Every veteran in Canada may freely present his case or concerns to the government by contacting a Legion Service Officer at any one of our 1,600 branches across Canada.

Therefore, the Royal Canadian Legion does not support or endorse the proposal to establish an independent “Ombudsman for Veterans” in Canada. This role is already carried out with effect by the Royal Canadian Legion. However the Legion would support and encourages the Government of Canada to implement the office of “Inspector General for Veterans Long Term Care”. The Legion notes today that the decision to transfer the management and provisions of long term care from the Government of Canada (through Veterans Affairs Canada) to the Provincial authorities has not proven to be as effective as originally considered. The loss of dedicated Veterans Hospitals, managed through the authority of Veterans Affairs Canada, has resulted in a significant decline in the level of care for our veterans. There is no longer a single standard for the provision of care and services in support of veterans since each province approaches the challenge differently based on varying budget allocations. Consequently, Veterans Affairs Canada is not perceived to have fully implemented its mandated responsibility for the care and support of needy veterans. It has abdicated that responsibility in devolving management to provincial health authorities.

It is proposed therefore that an “Inspector General for Veterans Long Term Care” be appointed to oversee and ensure that Veterans Affairs Canada is implementing its responsibilities in a fully effective manner to ensure that every province provides the fullest and most complete long term care services as owed and committed to our needy veterans.

With that said, Barbara and André, if you would, please make your presentation. Thank you.

º (1640)

Mr. André Marin (Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Forces): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

I am very happy to be here this afternoon to take part in your discussions concerning the institution of ombudsman at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

[English]

I'm here this afternoon in response to the committee's request to make myself available to discuss with you the concept of the ombudsman, how it operates at DND/CF, and whether it should exist for the Department of Veterans Affairs.

At the outset, I want to state that I profess to have no special expertise in regard to VAC issues; in fact, our mandate currently prohibits us from probing VAC cases. My opening statement will review how we operate at DND/CF and will relate to you our limited experience with VAC. I can respond to your questions and deal with the many challenges of properly establishing a credible and effective ombudsman's office.

[Translation]

The office assists current and former CF members and their families in investigating approximately 1,500 cases a year, and by providing information and referrals to resources and services available to both the CF and VAC. We provide information on applicable orders, regulations and policies issued by the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces. We provide advice and guidance on using existing complaint mechanisms. We investigate individual complaints where compelling circumstances such as hardship exist, or where the individual has exhausted internal mechanisms. We investigate and report on systemic issues affecting DND/CF members as a group, such as post-traumatic stress disorder and how the CF deals with complaints about exposure to environmental hazards on deployment.

[English]

Our office has encountered a number of cases where the problem being encountered results from an overlap between DND/CF and VAC and gaps in the system or problems in communication or transitioning from one system to the other. For example, there have been complaints about difficulty in establishing pension entitlement as a result of a lack of documentation from DND/CF of medical conditions or service-related injuries; complaints about delays in DND/CF providing information on medical conditions, injuries, or duty area in order to support pension entitlement or entitlement to other benefits or services; concerns about confidentiality of medical information flowing between CF and VAC, including cases where CF members have applied for pensions while still serving; and concerns about the transition of care of members from the Canadian Forces to VAC upon release, particularly for those members who suffer from operational stress injuries.

Members are often distrustful of the system, uncomfortable with change, or do not understand the reasons behind changes in treatment or benefits.

[Translation]

In our limited experience investigating cases which required assistance of VAC staff, we have found the cooperation extended to be good. Although our mandate specifically excludes us from VAC matters, we have still involved ourselves from time to time as a good Samaritan, on an informal basis. We have developed a positive working relationship with key officials at VAC.

º (1645)

[English]

Does VAC need an ombudsman? Despite VAC being specifically excluded from our mandate, we have received since the creation of our office nearly 250 complaints relating to matters that fall within that department. Common issues include significant delays in pension application and appeal process; feelings that applications are routinely initially denied in hopes the veteran will not appeal; concern that medical diagnoses are challenged or not accepted by pension board members; concern that sports injuries are not recognized as service related; feelings that Bureau of Pensions Advocates serve the interests of VAC as opposed to individual applicants. And there is a need for better training for VAC staff in order to deal with younger veterans who have served on multiple deployments and suffer from OSI-related issues, including severe anger management problems.

There is no better argument for a VAC ombudsman than what is found today on page 4 of the National Post where Korean War veterans, including Jim Cotter, who preceded me, are complaining of the high rates of mortality among the ranks. They are seeking recognition and apology, compensation for their treatment by the military and being doused with DDT and other chemicals during the war. All these things ring very familiar to us. We released a report a few months ago dealing with complaints concerning chemical agent testing during World War II. We recommended reasonable compensation for 3,500 veterans who were the subject of chemical warfare experiments involving mustard gas during World War II at military labs in Suffield and in Ottawa. The report noted that the former test subjects were historically refused VAC pensions and medical care because of the secrecy surrounding the tests, and the lack of documentation and recognition by government officials.

My office provided the necessary vehicle to advance the cause of the Suffield veterans and to ensure that their case was well articulated and positioned to prompt action and resolution of this matter within 25 days the production of a report following almost 60 years of languishing.

An ombudsman's office, far from weakening the leadership and management function of an institution, is a powerful tool for organizational renewal by being an important component of the organization's conscience. The ombudsman serves as a guardian of fair play and a place to turn when someone feels they have not been treated properly. It allows the organization an opportunity to right wrongs and is a reminder that there is more to an organization than the familiar and overused “putting our people first” credo.

With that, I'm prepared to take your questions. Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): Barbara, do you have anything to say? No? Then we'll go to the official opposition, for seven minutes.

Mr. Rick Casson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much for appearing today. It was the result of the committee wondering if there was any possible way that you could take on the role of advocating for veterans as well. I suppose the question I have to ask you, sir, is, what would it take to do that? I know your mandate's not there. That would have to be changed. But what would it take physically, by the number of people, budget, that type of thing? Do you have any idea?

Mr. André Marin: Actually, it would be a very simple process, because our mandate--unfortunately, I would add--does not derive from statute, which means we don't require statutory change; all it requires is an amendment by the Minister of National Defence, I suppose with the concurrence of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, to do that. So it's actually a very simple thing to do.

In terms of resources, as I said during my opening statement, despite the fact that there's a prohibition, we use the Good Samaritan approach and still get involved through the backdoor on many of these cases. We do get good support from key people in Veterans Affairs, so we haven't had legal challenges. But that being said, because there is a prohibition, we only get involved in the most egregious of cases and we do have to turn down the vast majority of cases.

In terms of budget and personnel, our staff is very well versed in VAC issues and we continue to gain corporate knowledge. We'd be talking about a handful of extra people to handle the VAC issues.

The problem right now is that we've had the ombudsman's office for six years as part of the Department of National Defence. We handle 1,500 cases a year. We publicize about half a dozen. I think we render a service that's very crucial to members, but as soon as they transition to the other department, they've lost their lifeline.

And there is a real issue here because, for example, if they need information to put a case to get a certain pension, the information comes from DND, so we can help them when it comes to that. But if the case becomes one of sufficiency of information, then it's a VAC issue. And members say, how come you're leaving us halfway through the journey? We have to go through the marathon, 26.2 miles, and you're leaving us at mile 13. So there's a difficulty in understanding why that happens. So in many ways, we're letting down these people.

º (1650)

Mr. Rick Casson: In your comments you mentioned that the veteran is denied whatever they're coming after originally in the hope that they won't appeal. Is that a feeling the vets have?

Mr. André Marin: There's definitely that feeling, yes. There's distrust of the system.

The ombudsman wears many hats. One of the most innocuous hats that I wear is a provider of information and orientation of people through the labyrinth of organizations, bodies, committees, task forces and so on, and the education. I think that in the long term we help build trust in those institutions, as opposed to building on the distrust.

If I may comment a little bit on the Royal Canadian Legion's statement here--

Mr. Rick Casson: Please do.

Mr. André Marin: --when we started off six years ago, there was a lot of anxiety within the existing mechanisms in the military, whether it was the civilian unions from DND, whether it was the senior warrant officer rank, who traditionally take care of the troops, whether it's the chain of command, that somehow the existence of the office would be an intrusion upon their authority. This is essentially the position of the Royal Canadian Legion; that is, “we are the ombudsman”.

But notwithstanding the excellent function of the Royal Canadian Legion, we do see these 250 cases come to us, despite the fact that our mandate says we don't do Veterans Affairs. You see the case of Jim Cotter preceding me. These cases exist.

So my view is that the position expressed by the Royal Canadian Legion is part of the natural insecurity about having a new kid on the block, the fact that perhaps your role will be eroded because of the existence of an ombudsman. But I would see an ombudsman's position working hand in hand with the legion, working hand in hand with the existing mechanisms.

Mr. Rick Casson: None of us would ever dispute the value of the legion in this country and the great work they do, but it seems to me there is a gap here.

I have a specific question. I think I asked Veterans Affairs officials the other day about this gold-diggers clause and the pension, where if you marry a veteran after age 60, you're not eligible for their pension, and they indicated it was a DND issue. Have you had to deal with that, with veterans' widows who aren't eligible for their spouse's pension because they married him after they were 60 years of age?

Mr. André Marin: I'm informed that we've had one or two cases, but we have not investigated this issue because it deals with legislative changes and it transitions into a Veterans Affairs Canada kind of issue that is off limits for us.

Mr. Rick Casson: You see, now we have a problem there. They're saying it's off limits to them, and you're saying it's off limits to you. There seems to be a gap in the middle.

Mr. André Marin: That is very typical. As I indicated earlier in the example I gave you, sometimes they need information, and it comes from DND. When they have the information and it's judged insufficient by VAC, it becomes a VAC issue. It happens that they pass the buck. I'm sure it's not intentional, but because they deal with two big competing bureaucracies, these things happen.

The logical extension of our function into the VAC section would be to ensure the continuity of service to military and former military members.

º (1655)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): We'll go to the Bloc, for seven minutes, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Marin and Ms. Finlay, the committee welcomes you.

You say that the mandate would be fairly easy to change, and I think you may be right. However, this would necessarily require a change in your current budget. If we give you additional duties, you cannot discharge them with the same number of employees. Would you agree that, if ever you're entrusted with those duties, your budgets would have to be increased accordingly so that you could provide the services required?

I have the impression you cannot deal with any cases dating back further than June 1998. Is that in fact so? If it is indeed so, that would have to be remedied as well. You are now dealing with complaints laid since 1998, by troops in a modern army. But here we are talking about veterans of World War II and the Korean War. Those complaints require a different type of expertise, and the same employees cannot necessarily deal with both. Such complaints would really have to be dealt with separately, and you would need people specialized in matters relating to veterans, would you not?

Mr. André Marin: We did become involved in the Suffield case, which dates back to World War II. To deal with cases dating back before June 9, 1998, we need the minister's permission. So far, we have received such permission every time we requested it, except in one case, where Mr. McCallum refused permission. So, except for one case, we have always been given the right to go back quite far.

You are quite right in saying that special expertise in the area must be developed, but it would simply be a question of reorganizing the office and establishing a section for veterans. About 30% of our staff consists of veterans, who have a great deal of experience with VAC. The needed expertise would not be very difficult for us to acquire.

Mr. Claude Bachand: I see. Moreover, it seems to me the minister is aware that the Department of National Defence needs a more compassionate image. I think that was the case you made for going back into the past. You may obtain his permission quite easily, but he does not have to give it. It is not cast in stone.

Mr. André Marin: No, it is not.

Mr. Claude Bachand: You have to persuade the minister, saying: "If you don't want to be taken for a bunch of heartless people, I am ready to investigate." That is more or less what you have to say, isn't it?

Mr. André Marin: Basically, we focus on the public interest, as well as the resources required. We look at the issue comprehensively and put our case to the minister. So far, that process has worked.

Some cases arouse a great deal of compassion and a great deal of interest, such as Mr. Cotter's case and the Suffield case. However, other individual cases are less important, like the case where someone is claiming a medal he allegedly did not receive during World War II. We estimate that a single investigation can cost up to several tens of thousands of dollars. It is therefore a question of judgment, and of resource allocation within the office.

Things are going well so far, but this provision in the mandate has obviously been criticized because it does allow for some political control in internal office decisions. But so far, the process has worked well.

Mr. Claude Bachand: The Canadian Legion claims that it is the true ombudsman. How do you feel about that? But I don't think the legion is the same everywhere. In my riding, there are two sections of the Canadian Legion. If one performs better than the other, veterans may end up not receiving equal treatment. So although it sounds nice to say so, I personally do not believe that all sections of the Canadian Legion can provide equal service across Canada. That may be where the problem lies.

Mr. André Marin: That's right, and we must recognize that, even if the ombudsman's office is independent of the organization, we have access to all levels of the department. It is a professional office, and its mandate specifically provides access at all levels of the department. Denying the office full cooperation would be an infringement of the disciplinary code. We have a legal framework that enables us to go into the department and take action.

We do not see the office as somehow competing with existing forms of recourse. As I said earlier in English, when we first established the ombudsman's office six years ago, the civilian unions at DND saw us as a threat. Chief warrant officers and senior non-commissioned officers saw themselves as being the ombudsmen of the Canadian Forces. So everyone said we were encroaching into their territory. But we believe that we play a complementary role, not a role that would lead to the assimilation of existing organizations.

» (1700)

Mr. Claude Bachand: I must concede that I have not read your mandate recently. Do you render mandatory decisions? Can you tell the department that it has done something badly and that it must pay for it?

Mr. André Marin: No, we do not do that.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Your role is more advisory in nature.

Mr. André Marin: We can make recommendations, rather than impose action. That said, the fact that we can publish reports is extremely important. In 95% of cases, we succeed in having our recommendations accepted.

Mr. Claude Bachand: So you believe that an ombudsman, be it you or a separate ombudsman, would be useful to veterans.

Mr. André Marin: Absolutely. There is nothing to prevent the Department of Veterans Affairs from having its own ombudsman, but I should point out that there are several different kinds of ombudsman. There are a number of people with the title of ombudsman, and there are all sorts. Some people are called ombudsman but are nothing more than an extension of the department's human resources branch. So if a separate ombudsman's office were to be established, it would need the instruments required to genuinely fulfill the ombudsman's role.

Mr. Claude Bachand: So, you claim to be separate from and independent of the department.

Mr. André Marin: Yes.

Mr. Claude Bachand: So, in your view, an ombudsman for veterans should have the same ability to act that you have.

Mr. André Marin: Absolutely, yes.

Mr. Claude Bachand: I see. Thank you.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): Thank you.

Now we'll hear from the government side for seven minutes.

Mr. John O'Reilly: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, André and Barbara, for appearing. Of course, I've spoken to you privately about the need for an ombudsman office directly for veterans. It comes from the fact that somewhere along the line a person discharged from the military becomes a veteran. You may actually be dealing with why that person is discharged or when they are discharged, and then you're dealing with a veteran. You're really crossing over into an area that may not necessarily be your territory.

Of course, as we saw from the legion thing, there are always people who have what they consider to be their own silo. They operate in that silo and don't want to be disturbed. But I have 18 legions in my riding--it's a very large riding--and some of them are only open one or two days a week. Some of them aren't open at all. I think some 47 legions closed in Canada last year, so the need for the office is there. I think you agree that it could be handled through your office. Over the six years, that's been proven.

There are certainly people who don't like your office, or maybe they don't like the decisions you make. But when you tramp on someone else's territory, that always seems to happen. A lot of people don't want to operate with a cloud over their heads, that whatever they do, their authority may be restricted a little because they may have to answer publicly for what happens.

So putting all of those things out of the way, I'm 100% sure that the office would serve veterans. But we would have to change more than just your mandate. We would have to change legislation. My colleagues over here talked about the person over 60.... Basically the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act is administered through DND, not through Veterans Affairs, yet there are veterans who are receiving it. That shows you that the over-60 problem--the old diggers thing, as my friend referred to it--is something that Veterans Affairs really has no authority over. It is through the Minister of National Defence. It's DND legislation.

How do we deal with that without changing the legislation and allowing your office to become involved in it? There are many problems I see because of the legislation that we would have to overcome. Maybe if your office handled both it would sort itself out. But I think we would require a legislation change, and more than just a stroke of the pen.

I would like to have your comments on that.

» (1705)

Mr. André Marin: Yes. As this committee knows better than I do, Mr. Chair, legislation is a laborious process and goes through many phases. Certainly, as a temporary measure, it could be done very easily, pending legislative changes.

Our office was created in 1998, and our mandate was enacted in 1999 and then further modified in 2001. There was a commitment by the Minister of National Defence to give a legislative foundation to our office, which is still unfulfilled six years later. It's something we want to see happen. I think the government is still committed to doing it, but the opportunity hasn't presented itself. Now that we've made our mark on the system and demonstrated our ability to the job, we need to be in the statute. If the statute is amended to properly give us the legal foundation to operate, as opposed to operating under the pen of the minister and the chief of defence staff, then it would be the time to make other changes to allow us to operate within veterans affairs. You could do both at the same time and tie the loops.

When you look at the legion's position--in reference to your comment, Mr. O'Reilly--there is no doubt that we would have a complementary role. Our office has the infrastructure, access, and expertise. People inside the department in the Canadian Forces have to cooperate fully; otherwise, they are committing a disciplinary offence. We have the compulsion to cooperate that other bodies, such as the legion, may not have. I think it makes a big difference in the kind of access we get.

There's no doubt that the initial reaction of people to an ombudsman's office is to automatically feel anxious, because people know they'll have someone looking over their shoulders. I think the Canadian Forces quickly pointed out, at the time, that they have this, they have that, and they really need an ombudsman. I suspect the inclination of Veterans Affairs would be the same. I may be wrong, but they have task forces, they have plans, and they have different things. The independence of thought and investigation that an ombudsman's office affords is really the only show in town.

When I give reports, it reminds me of the quote by Harry Truman, when he said “I never give them hell; I just tell the truth and they think it's hell”. That's often the position of our office. When they hear the reports we make, they're often taken aback. We were able to make the reports, the pronouncements, without fear of contradicting the party line of the department.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): Very briefly, Mr. O'Reilly.

Mr. John O'Reilly: I think you could overcome the June 15, 1998, investigative matter in the military by excluding veterans from that, be it Second World War veterans, Korean War veterans, or whatever the veterans are. I don't think it's particularly our problem.

The thing that troubles me is when I get a lot of complaints. I'm the assistant to the minister as an unpaid parliamentary secretary—that's what they call me, anyway—which keeps me out of a lot of things. I end up getting a lot of complaints, and there's really nobody to turn to. There's really no place to vent.

If I have a banking problem, as a member of Parliament, I can go to the ombudsman of a bank or any other institution. There's usually some place where you can actually get some results if you come to a dead end, except in Veterans Affairs. I strongly support the role, including Veterans Affairs, and hope we could work through the various differences that are there.

I'm fascinated by the June 15, 1998, clause. I wasn't sure of that.

Mr. André Marin: Perhaps I can provide a little background on that clause. There was a lot of concern, when the position was created, that the position would reopen the Somalia issue. I think the clause was put in to encourage the office to look forward and not backward. It was highly criticized, at the time, because it's a highly unconventional clause to have in an ombudsman's mandate. Usually, the ombudsman would be free to make those calls and not have to apply to a political master to make those calls.

That being said, as I've indicated, the clause has worked fairly well. I'm not very critical of it. Only once did Mr. McCallum deny us looking back at a case. Out of all the cases that we have asked to go back to, we were allowed to do every single one but that one case. It appears to work, I think, because of the transparency of the office.

Certainly, your comment is excellent. When an ombudsman's office functions, you wear different hats. The ability to vent is an important one. It's not only send in the cavalry, do the big investigation, and do the report. It's also the place to vent, and it allows people to get information and counsel. It's an extremely important function. I think it cannot be overlooked. There are not only major investigations to be done.

» (1710)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): Mrs. Wayne, five minutes.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Thank you very much.

I personally want to thank you. I think you do an excellent job, you really and truly do. You keep the politics out of it, and that's the way it should be. We've monitored that for some time.

The same thing has to apply when it comes to the veterans. I'm sure if you were the ombudsman for the veterans, all of those widows, not just the ones dating back to 1990, would receive the VIP program. I had a call from one widow whose husband died in August 1990. He was a veteran. She didn't get the VIP program, but a lady across the street from her, whose husband died in September 1990, did get the VIP program. The widow who called me was crying when she called.

I think it's very important when it comes to the veterans that we have an opportunity to have someone there who will not play politics with them but who will do what's right for them. They're all now becoming very senior. Most of them are not that well, they certainly are not, and we need to have a voice for them.

I'm wondering, do you have enough time, do you think, or are you too busy to take on another burden like this?

Mr. André Marin: I think it would require a small reorganization of the office, with perhaps a few more bodies, to create a specialized cell to handle these kinds of cases. But I don't see this as being a major obstacle. I don't think you would need to reinvent the office or shift resources tremendously.

With regard to your comments about the widow calling your office, that is something I find extremely moving. In terms of the cases we've been involved in, I remember when the case of the Suffield veterans came to our attention. Out of 3,500, how many were still alive? Maybe a couple of thousand or less.

» (1715)

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: That's right.

Mr. André Marin: At 80 years old they were reduced to writing letters to the editor, appearing on talk shows; this is what we put these people through. I remember the letters I got that were typed on old typewriters. They were sitting in their basements doing these things, being left to their own devices.

I remember how when I met them, and I told them we were going to take over their cases, and would do this and do that, their eyes would be wide open, almost in disbelief. I mean, where was this guy falling out of the sky from?

The office allows for a way to articulate things, and uses its status and moral authority to channel these things in an organized way. Mr. Cotter, who preceded me today, is typical; in our contact with these veterans, their heart is in the right place. They're looking for justice, and they're leaning on their son, their relative, their local paper. That's not an organized way to present your case. It's not his fault, of course, but that's where an ombudsman makes the difference. We have our specialized staff, and the knowledge and access. We are able to articulate, to verbalize, to present trends to you. For instance, you have before you the trend in cases. We are able to categorize complaints.

So it's an incredible resource we offer these people that they now are not getting at VAC.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I have to say that Mr. Tanner was in touch with me many times from B.C. with regard to the mustard gas situation. In fact, I got another fax from him again today, God love him. But he certainly sang your praises and said how much you helped him.

I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I fully agree that we need to have...however we work it out, whether it's an inspector general or someone underneath the ombudsman who can work on this, under his guidance and so on, or however he feels is the best way to go. I think that is something we should definitely look at and do as quickly as we can.

Thank you very much.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): Mr. O'Reilly, I know you wanted to make a quick comment.

Mr. John O'Reilly: Thank you.

I'm on the 60th anniversary committee for the Normandy invasion, and what I find at Veterans Affairs is that the clients are 80-plus years old, 84 or 86. We had a picture today with General Rohmer, Garth Webb, Jan DeVries, and they're all in the eighties club.

I would say that the client's problem is a problem of modern-day communication. I have a Palm Pilot that will take your picture, do the laundry, and tell you when to get up in the morning. It has a satellite phone on it and all that stuff. And it doesn't work in my riding, because we're not in digital. I'm a member of Parliament; you'd think I'd be able to use a Palm Pilot.

At any rate, if I gave the people I deal with seven websites from which they could get all of this information, they'd think a website would be something you would take a broom to, to get it out of the room.

I find that we have advanced extremely quickly to relying on the communications we have in Ottawa, but it just doesn't work when you go to places in my riding. I'm not complaining, but if you take my riding and Larry McCormick's riding, you have a third of the land in southern Ontario. I have some 60 communities and 18 legions. Very few of them have really good communications and computer access other than CAP sites and so forth.

So my problem is the communications tools that I think most government departments now are relying on. You know, we're trying to get Veterans Affairs to just answer the phone. It's all automated now. You could pick up the phone, call Veterans Affairs, and get somebody in Sudbury or Charlottetown with all these automated phone systems. People in their eighties can't handle that, so they turn to members of Parliament like Rick and me and Claude, and other MPs here. We then have to kind of fight through this, and we really don't have third-party agreement to get all the information because of access to information problems. We are sometimes trying to fill your role without having any way to do it, which is probably why I'm a strong advocate of not doing anything other than adding veterans affairs to your department, and working our way through it.

Those are my own personal thoughts.

Mr. André Marin: I agree entirely, Mr. O'Reilly, with your comments. It is absolutely daunting for these people to access the internal mechanisms. That is why we structured our office as simply as we could, under the theme of one-stop shopping. You can call a 1-800 number, 1-888-8BUDMAN, to make it as simple as possible, anywhere in the world. From there we assist people. We receive referrals constantly from members of Parliament of all parties. We've received some from ministers of national defence.

I mean, that's what we do. We're the cement between all these other bodies that you've talked about, and we try to make it less daunting for people to access those mechanisms.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): Monsieur Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Thank you.

If we gave your mandate—as it is described in here—to an ombudsman at the Department of Veterans Affairs, how useful do you think that would be to veterans?

Mr. André Marin: I believe that it would be very useful as an interim solution. The ombudsman's office has been waiting for its legislative mandate for six years now. This temporary mandate would fill the current void, and we could introduce legislative amendments to give us the legal foundation we need to operate.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Are you saying that there is no legal foundation at present?

Mr. André Marin: No, there is not.

» (1720)

Mr. Claude Bachand: Was the office established by order in council?

Mr. André Marin: It was established through a departmental directive. The minister gives the directive to the chief of staff and deputy minister, giving us the powers we need to operate. This has been a temporary solution. It has worked so far, but this is how we have been operating for six years now. We are still waiting for the enabling legislation, which we have been told was on the way. However we also need agreement from the Minister of Veterans Affairs. The Minister of Defence cannot just give us what we need. It has to come from the Minister of Veterans Affairs. However, Mr. McCallum has always believed in the ombudsman's office, and has supported us throughout. I can obviously not speak on behalf of Mr. McCallum, but I don't think there would be problems. The two ministers would have to agree if we were to go ahead with this.

Mr. Claude Bachand: But this does not give you additional powers. What is the problem with having no legal foundation for your organization? I would imagine that if anyone were to file suit against you, the government would have to deal with it.

Mr. André Marin: If we had a legal foundation, we would not depend on any department for authority. We would have enabling legislation, and our existence would be more soundly assured.

Mr. Claude Bachand: I see.

Mr. André Marin: This creates both a perception problem and an operational problem. You talked about filing suit. Most ombudsmen have immunity against civil proceedings. A departmental directive cannot grant such immunity, which can only come with enabling legislation. Thus, there are all kinds of things that need to be done so that we finally have the legislative basis we need to operate this office properly.

Mr. Claude Bachand: I image that you ask the department regularly for the enabling legislation it has promised. What answer do you get? Is the legislation at least being prepared?

Mr. André Marin: We don't know. Initially, we were very insistent, but then we saw that we were not going to have the legislation in a matter of months. We let it go for a while. We are becoming insistent again this year because we have been there for six years now, and the department has made a commitment. Given the support we have from Ministers Eggleton, Pratt and McCallum, I am convinced that there is no political objection. All we need is the commitment to complete the work. We think that, after six years, it is high time for the legislation to be in place. We need to put our house in order.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Absolutely.

I'd like you to tell me something about the advisory committee. I know that its members meet regularly. What do they talk about? Who are the committee members? I believe you can select them, but only from a list that the department provides.

Mr. André Marin: No, I select candidates myself, and submit my choices to the minister. Every candidate I have submitted to the minister has been accepted. These are people I select to represent a variety of ranks and experience. Some are former members, while others are currently in the chain of command.

We meet about four times a year for an entire day. I put forward a number of hypothetical problems, talk about trends we observed, and we receive feedback. I ask them if they have any comments to make, or directions to suggest.

The committee does not examine individual cases, but deals solely with orientation. They provide advice on general policy. It is the committee that decides who receives the Ombudsman's Mention. Every year, I present several awards for excellence in ethics, in cooperation with the office. We review candidates and they suggest candidates to me as well.

The committee is extremely important in office operations, as part of general operations. We have former lieutenant generals, as well as sergeants I have taken from the ranks or upon retirement to help me manage the office. The committee is very productive, and I appreciate its contribution enormously.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Most of them are people who are not active today, or rather people who have completed their service with the military.

Mr. André Marin: Yes, but there are people currently in the military as well.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Are there?

Mr. André Marin: They are currently in the chain of command, and that is why we do not submit individual cases to them. I view them as a mechanism to help me see the response I would get to my ideas from the chain of command. I use them as a group that provides general opinions. They tell me how they would respond if I made a certain proposal. This helps me plan my approach more effectively when I do go to the chain of command.

» (1725)

Mr. Claude Bachand: Could you use the committee as a lobbying instrument as well? Could you ask one of the members to speak to General Henault, for example, and ask him to provide you with enabling legislation as ombudsman? Can you do that?

Mr. André Marin: I could, but I don't use the committee for that. I have access to the minister and to the parliamentary committee, and I think I should do my own lobbying.

Mr. Claude Bachand: I see. Thank you.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Murray Calder): Okay.

Bells will be ringing in a couple of minutes, at 5:30 p.m., so I will thank you, Barbara and André, for appearing in front of us. The information you've given us is very valuable, and we thank you very much for it.

We will now adjourn.