Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 1st, 2006

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

It's got nothing to do with the ombudsman, but we'll go anyway.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

No, I think it is actually important to the idea of the ombudsman, because touring the facilities and having an understanding of what they deal with—

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

You're going to do it on the 20th.

[An hon. member]

We'll stop by the legion for a beer on the way back.

[An hon. member]

Two beers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Mrs. Hinton.

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

Are we finished with the eighth? I have no problem with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

I think we're going to go on the eighth.

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

Okay. I'm a little bit surprised at what I'm hearing.

Maybe you could clarify it for me, Gilles. Are you saying that the witnesses who are coming are unclear on the ombudsman? Or are you saying that you—

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Ms. Hinton, I see a problem. The first good testimony we have heard since we have been examining the ombudsman issue is Mr. Marin’s testimony this afternoon. He came to the committee prepared to talk about the ombudsman position.

I don’t want to say anything against the former president and the new President of the Canadian Legion, but they hesitated and sometimes answered yes, sometimes no. I understand these people do not want speak out with more assurance; they have nothing in front of them. If a bill or a draft gave them a definition of an ombudsman...They don’t even have the government’s definition.

Ask Ms. Richard , who is here, to talk to us about the ombudsman for 10 minutes. Instead she could talk to us for two hours about veterans who took part in the Gulf War and it would be very interesting. However, she does not have any tools for talking to us about the ombudsman. We should give her a copy of the Ontario or Quebec legislation and ask her what she thinks of it.

Give people the tools to come and tell us what they think. Give them something concrete. Right now, the ombudsman is like the Holy Spirit, a vague notion.

What is the government’s definition of an ombudsman?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Welcome to the zoo.

Anyhow, Monsieur Perron, I think what's going to happen is that we're going to be listening to the testimony of witnesses to come up with a report and recommendations for the creation of an ombudsman. That's what it says.

Mrs. Hinton.

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

You just hit the nail on the head.

My impression when this committee started was that our objective was to listen to witnesses, to look at a variety of different ombudsmen positions and a bill of rights, and to listen to the input that came forward and then to take something to the minister.

What I'm hearing you say is that you want the minister to bring something to the committee, rather than have input from the committee on how it should be structured. You're saying have the minister bring a bill.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam, all of us on the committee are like dogs running after their tails right now. We’re going around in circles.

Ask the clerk to get out all the committees’ blues. Do you read the committees’ blues? If you read the committee’s blues, you will notice that, in 80 per cent of cases, there is no mention of an ombudsman.

Read the blues our clerk makes available for you. You will see that, in 80 per cent to 85 per cent of cases, we are not talking about the ombudsman with the witnesses who appear before us, except today, when we talked about an ombudsman 100 per cent of the time.

I found this interesting. It should give us an idea of what an ombudsman should be. As far as the others are concerned, if we ask them whether the term of the mandate should be five, three or two years, they answer that they don’t know. If we suggested that it be six years, they could tell us it's too long or not long enough.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

We have four people who want to speak. We're only taking four, because I don't know how productive this is. I'll let you know that we have Yves Côté coming on the 22nd. We're hoping to have on the 27th of this month somebody from the Netherlands. We also have Mr. Winzenberg from Australia on the 29th. These are all pretty pertinent to the ombudsman.

Mr. Shipley.

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

As to the definition, we should not pre-empt what we're going to put forward unless we're satisfied that we've got all the witnesses. If we're going to do that, then we've already taken the lead in saying what we're going to do. If we want to have witnesses from the provinces, we can do that. I think our clear direction is to learn about the ombudsman. But if we're asking witnesses questions that are not about ombudsmen, then it's not their fault but ours.

We need to make sure that we don't short-circuit it. When we put a draft forward, I believe we're getting close to making a decision. So if we're done hearing witnesses about the ombudsman, then we can get the clerk to draft a report. Until then, we may still want hear options. We've heard a lot of them already. Today was likely the most clear in direction given, no doubt about it. But on some of the other ones, there was a lot of talk about how they see it.

His report today laid out different options of how other people see an ombudsman. That's good to know. When we go to the House and defend this as a committee, they'll want to know whether we've looked at all the others, whether we understand what some of the other jurisdictions use in the way of an ombudsman.

So if we've heard enough about the office of ombudsman, then we start to do a draft of our final report to the House. That's how I see it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

By the end of this month, certainly by the beginning of the next, we should be at the report stage.

Mr. St. Denis has suggested bringing in Mr. Owen, who used to serve as an ombudsman in British Columbia.

Mr. St. Denis.

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

I think we all generally agree that we're moving in the right direction. To me, it's just a process thing. We've heard quite a few witnesses. Today, in particular, was helpful. But I think we should have something, even a working document with two or three options, that witnesses could use to tell us how we're doing. Right now, we're shooting in the dark.

I don't think it's pre-emptive of anything. You've heard of mid-term reports, draft reports, working documents. I don't see anything wrong with setting down some reasonable ideas. This field is not an infinite field. There are only a limited number of things one can do, and I think Mr. Marin spoke clearly to that today.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

My view is similar. I thought today's witness was very helpful, and I'm sure the committee benefited from his testimony. It's not surprising that some witnesses are more sophisticated than others, more experienced in certain areas. Some have a broader perspective—the whole nine yards. The thing is to dial them in on what's relevant.

I know it's a lot to ask of the researcher, but I think it would help to have a mid-term report identifying some of the options that have been offered with respect to, say, the selection of the ombudsman and the duration of his term. We need some context to help us focus in the short time we have left to put forward a draft proposal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Mrs. Hinton, I am sorry, you are not on the list any more. You had your chance.

Mr. Mayes.

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

We're trying to establish whether there's a need for an ombudsman, whether there's a problem with the department, whether an ombudsman is warranted to meet veterans' issues. Are these the only questions this committee is going to deal with, or are we also going to look at the framework in which the ombudsman works and his roles and responsibilities?

We also have to consider the work plan and the cost. There has to be a cost associated with this. Could it be afforded by the department? I don't know whether money would be available.

These are the steps in front of us. Are we addressing just one, or are we looking at all of these steps?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

I'm sorry. Mrs. Hinton won't get a chance to speak, nor will Mr. Gaudet. We're coming up on time.

I'm going to ask our researcher to prepare one page for our witnesses that lays out some of the larger, if you will, branches in the tree that this can take. This would be so they can direct their comments to how many years is in a term; who they should report to, whether it be the minister or the committee, and that type of thing. That way it helps direct some of their comments. They can give their reflections on some of those various options. If we could have something simple at this stage, so it's not onerous, either on you or for them, in terms of having to prepare and address it, does that make sense?

Is that acceptable to the committee?

Monsieur Perron.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

No, and I'm going to tell you why. I'm going to tell you one thing, Rob, and I'm going to speak English, so that everybody will understand what I mean. I gave you the tools to find out by telling you to see

the site of the Public Protector Act. You have all received a copy; I had them distributed. I also encouraged you to go look at the Ontario Ombudsman site. Be honest, don’t answer like politicians. How many of you went and looked at it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

No, of course not.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Yes, but that is part of our work. We are supposed to become informed, ask intelligent questions and move the project forward. That is our responsibility as Members of Parliament and members of this committee. Each of us must have at least an approximate idea of what an ombudsman is and what he or she should do. It is not up to Michel to give us questions we should ask. Go on. It is written here that the mandate should be five years or three years, that he or she should be selected by the Speaker, by the assembly. Go ahead, kids, do your own research. Of course it’s political. We shouldn’t wait for everything to be handed to us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Monsieur Perron, nobody writes questions for me. Okay?

Monsieur Perron, I appreciate your passion on this issue, but we're--