Evidence of meeting #15 for Veterans Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ontario.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Roger Valley Liberal Kenora, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Marin, the committee, I can tell you, is putting a lot of weight on your comments and your advice. We're even prepared to overlook that you're a lawyer; we can do that for you.
4:55 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
5 p.m.
Liberal
Roger Valley Liberal Kenora, ON
Especially not lawyers.
In the document you gave us, the Ombudsman Act, on page five I understand point 4 pretty clearly—“May consult minister”. If you need to talk to a minister, we can understand that.
It's the fifth one, “Must consult minister”. I read it several times to be clear on it. I wouldn't ask you, in your own position today, because you work for the Ontario government and work for the people of Ontario, but I'd like to know, with all your experience and how much you have heard in all your experience with the ombudsmen you know across Canada and the experience you have with your international group, how much interference can come from a clause like that. Have you ever heard of it?
Again, we're not asking you to talk about your current job for Ontario, but in your years of experience with DND before, and with the international experience, does or could this clause bring about political interference?
5 p.m.
Ombudsman of Ontario
Actually, the way this clause is interpreted is that when you're going to make a final recommendation, you're giving the minister an opportunity to respond before you finalize the report, so I don't think it's a bad one. The language used is “must consult”. The language could be more precise if it said “must give notice or an opportunity to respond”, but that's really how it's interpreted.
To come back to the other question, whether there is political interference in my experience, yes, there is potential for it. That's why, in my view, the ombudsman should not report to a minister but to a committee, to further insulate and protect not only the ombudsman but the minister.
A minister never wants to be in a position of being accused of meddling in the jurisdiction of an independent organization, so it's for the protection of both parties.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Roger Valley Liberal Kenora, ON
Thank you.
Just on the final line there, it almost begs the question whether, before you have a final opinion.... I understand this, being a politician, but for somebody reading this, it almost looks as if you're giving the minister an opportunity to change your final opinion.
5 p.m.
Ombudsman of Ontario
If you report to Parliament, the minister has no power over you, so he can say what he wants. If you report to a minister, that's when you run into problems. That's why I don't recommend that the veterans ombudsman report to the minister.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Roger Valley Liberal Kenora, ON
I wouldn't be particularly worried about somebody with your abilities, because you've shown them clearly today. But there are other people who don't have your strengths, and I would worry.
It almost looks as if we're setting ourselves up for a bit of a problem. But again I've just seen it recently, that's why I asked your opinion on your experience.
5 p.m.
Ombudsman of Ontario
It takes a lot of fortitude to weather all the storms that will happen in the course of a five- or six-year term. That's why I recommend a reporting relationship to a parliamentary committee such as this one, or to Parliament.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Brent St. Denis Liberal Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Just 30 seconds, Mr. Chair, thank you.
The notion of benefit of the doubt has been talked about in the context of veterans. In the ideal situation, the benefit of the doubt goes to the weaker party to a dispute, which is usually the applicant to have a pension or some kind of reprieve. Within your legislation, or within the ambit generally of ombudsmen, is there a discussion of benefit of the doubt?
5 p.m.
Ombudsman of Ontario
The ombudsman is not an advocate. The ombudsman is an independent, impartial body. So before the ombudsman takes a position on an issue, I have to be convinced that a decision, policy, or practice is unjust, unfair, or discriminatory. Once you've convinced yourself there is such a problem, then you become an advocate for getting it fixed. So you don't approach cases with an idea of giving the benefit of the doubt. You approach cases with a view to determining if there has been an administrative wrong you need to correct.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Anders
At this stage, since we don't have any other people on the question roster--it's down to ping-pong between the Conservatives and the Liberals--we'll call an end to your presentation.
Thank you very much for being a witness today. You've been one of our better presenters in terms of giving us some detail for things to mull over. Monsieur Perron is going to take great credit for that. And it was nice of you to bring your family today to take in the proceedings.
We've got a little bit of committee business I want to raise after this. Thank you very much for your presentation.
5 p.m.
Some hon. members
Hear, hear!
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Anders
I'm going to start talking and hope that some of the committee members return to their chairs. Okay, the Liberals are here, fair enough.
We've just had Monsieur Marin's presentation.
On Monday, we're going to have Don Ethell. On Wednesday, we have a vacancy. Then there's a break week, the week after that. On November 20 we're going to Ste. Anne's Hospital in Montreal.
We've broken that up because of Ste. Anne's; it's pretty much going to be a full day to go to Montreal. I'm wondering, in the normal time we would have for the two hours of committee meeting, 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, November 8, if we make the trip to the Ottawa facility. How do you feel about that?
Mr. St. Denis.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Brent St. Denis Liberal Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
I don't mean to jump ahead of Gilles, but considering what we heard today, I'm wondering if we could have something on the table. Could we have an ombudsman draft or something we could use as a benchmark, rather than always talking in the ethereal? I'd like Gilles to speak to that.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
Gilles-A. Perron Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
I think right now...
The committee’s big problem is that our work is not grounded. When people from the Department of Veterans Affairs or young people come here to discuss the Ombudsman bill, they are not sure about the topic to be discussed. Therefore the committee and the government should table a draft of their view of an ombudsman. That way people who come to testify could say whether it’s good or not and tell us what has to be improved.
I don’t want to say anything against the witnesses we had last Monday, but they talked to us about the Korean War for 18 minutes out of 20. When we brought up the subject of the ombudsman, they were reticent and we had to drag everything out of them. If the witnesses had a document or a draft bill in hand that is to be examined, they could speak with more authority.
On that subject, I’ve reached the point where I think we have almost heard enough testimony. We have reached the stage of going to see the Ombudsman of each province and starting to draft a bill. I think we have heard enough witnesses.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Anders
I sense we're going to go off on a discussion of a report or the tabling of a bill; fine, we can do that, but I want to get this dealt with. Is it okay if we head off on the eighth to visit the Ottawa facility?
Does everybody capisce...? Okay, good. Now that we've got that established—