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.
3:50 p.m.
Ombudsman of Ontario
Yes, and it should be through this committee or another committee. I am against having an ombudsman report to a minister.
3:50 p.m.
Ombudsman of Ontario
The problem is, very simply, that there is a conflict of interest. The role of a minister is to administer his or her department. The minister is the person in charge. If we consider the British theory of ministerial responsibility, the minister is responsible for the actions of the department. I know that, over the years, there have been attempts to change that theory. However, there was a time when the minister had to resign, if a gaffe was committed by the department. That has changed over time; we are no longer as strict.
The problem is that, when a minister is responsible for a department, and an ombudsman reports to the minister, it is in the minister's interests to protect and promote the best interests of the department. When the ombudsman identifies a systemic problem, a great deal of pressure is exerted on the ombudsman not to make it public, which causes a conflict of interest, a problem in relations.
I experienced it for seven years. I left. At a certain point, it was implied that I had been dismissed. That is not the case. I left because I had completed my seven years and another opening was offered to me. During those seven years, there were conflicts. I experienced them. It wasn’t necessarily because the ministers were not good or were given bad advice by politicians, although that sometimes happened. It was more because it can’t work within the infrastructure of a department. We can’t all be friends. The ombudsman is there to blow the whistle on improper administration. Sometimes that doesn’t make the minister or the department look good.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Gilles-A. Perron Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
It is true that you were not dismissed but you were told that your contract would not be renewed in July 2005. I am one of the people who got the information directly from the department.
I suppose you are familiar with the Quebec Public Protector Act. The Public Protector is what we call an ombudsman here.
Is that Act similar to the Ontario Act?
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Gilles-A. Perron Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Then we could base the creation of federal legislation on legislation that exists in Quebec and Ontario.
3:55 p.m.
Ombudsman of Ontario
Absolutely. All the provinces have slightly different legislation on the ombudsman or public protector, but they are all more or less the same.
3:55 p.m.
Ombudsman of Ontario
Yes. I brought a copy of our Ontario Act. I am willing to file it with the clerk if you wish. Unfortunately, I only have the English version, but it is available on our Web site in French and English.
This is good legislation, very simple. The laws are very succinct, not complex or very lengthy. It’s very simple. In Ontario, the Ombudsman monitors all the agencies, all the departments and all the Crown corporations of Ontario to blow the whistle on unreasonable, unfair or inequitable decisions or policies. The Ombudsman can compel a person to testify under oath. The Ombudsman has the power to enter any premises in the province and can require a department to produce documents. The department has an obligation under the Act to provide full cooperation. If the department does not co-operate, there are penalties. The Ombudsman’s ultimate authority is to make a recommendation, which is not binding.
There are only two exceptions to my jurisdiction in Ontario. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the office of elected provincial officials and cannot investigate the Provincial Court, which is strictly judicial. Those two limits are easy to explain.
3:55 p.m.
Ombudsman of Ontario
Yes, it is the case in Quebec, too. Everything else is within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman of the province. The chair of the pension administration committee said that there were pitfalls, that the situation was unconstitutional and impossible. Tribunals of that kind have quasi-judicial independence. That shows a profound lack of understanding of the situation and the rules that apply. It may also be an attempt to change the subject; I don’t know. However, it is clearly false. I exercise the authority our office has exercised for 30 years.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Gilles-A. Perron Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Mr. Marin, let’s try to speed up a bit, because five minutes is pretty short.
How long should an ombudsman's appointment be? For five years, six years, seven years?
4 p.m.
Ombudsman of Ontario
I was appointed for five years. Most of the provincial ombudsman appointments are for a period of five years. Previously, in Ontario, an ombudsman was appointed for 10 years. The term of the mandate was reduced to five years. However, it is renewable. The Ombudsman also holds office during good behaviour.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Gilles-A. Perron Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
What is the salary of an ombudsman? What percentage of the salary of the Premier is it equivalent to?
4 p.m.
Ombudsman of Ontario
The salary of the Ombudsman is usually the same as the salary of the most senior public servant in the province.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Gilles-A. Perron Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
It's approximately the same salary, the equivalent?
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Anders
All right.
Next is Mr. Stoffer, for five minutes; Ms. Hinton is on deck.
November 1st, 2006 / 4 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Perron, and Madam Finlay.
Thanks for appearing before us. Mr. Marin, I thought you did a great job when you were the ombudsman of defence. I always thought it was the federal government's loss and Ontario's gain when you left.
I'm not sure if you're aware, but the ombudsman of defence came out with a report today that clearly stated some major inaccuracies in relation to what happened during the Kuwait Gulf War, and how the concerns raised over and over again by the people who were behind us were completely sidetracked by, I would say, all members of all governments--not just the government, but other political parties as well, because they didn't take their issues seriously enough and were hiding behind so-called factual evidence.
Today the ombudsman I think verified many of their claims. If ever ther was justification for an ombudsman, today proved it.
I've been asking various groups about one of the concerns I have. We have a defence ombudsman and we're advocating for a veterans ombudsman. What would be your view on having the ombudsman do both--that is, expanding his or her particular role and giving adequate resources for the one individual to do both? I ask because many people who work in the service would leave either through retirement or through a disability; when they're out of the military, they are now veterans, but some of their concerns are defence-related and not necessarily related to Veterans Affairs Canada. I'm just wondering what your views would be on that. Should it be one overseeing both, or should there be two separate ombudsmen?
4 p.m.
Ombudsman of Ontario
When I left my post in March 2005, Mr. Stoffer, I published a white paper in which I recommended there be one office for both. My concern is that since the military so adamantly opposes a statutory ombudsman, if the option is to piggyback a veterans ombudsman on the military one, it would be a shame, because it is an inferior model. It should not serve as a precedent; it should serve as lessons learned on where not to go. I was in that job for seven years, and it was like pulling hair a lot of the time.
The Chief of Defence Staff is not interested in oversight; oversight brings bad news, bad publicity, and detracts from the mission. It is not a popular concept in the chain of command. They view it as meddling in the chain of command, diluting authority, and calling their good judgment into question. They have very thin skin. It would be a shame to say....
I'm quite aware that there are some economies of scale to be achieved if you had just one. In an ideal world you'd have one, but you have an opportunity here, because of the clear commitment by the Prime Minister, to create a strong veterans ombudsman--to do it from a clean slate and to do it right, and maybe have the military ombudsman later join in, as opposed to grafting a model onto an inferior model. That's my concern.
4 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
I have a second question for you. I know this will mean a vague answer, because I know you can't find a World War II or Korean War or Cold War or Kuwait or Afghanistan veteran with a legal and medical background to fill the role of the ombudsman, but If you were advising the government on the individual, what credentials do you believe that individual should have to come to the table to assist veterans and their families when it comes to concerns on DVA?
4 p.m.
Ombudsman of Ontario
That's a very good question.
I've examined the world of ombudsmen and people who come through this world, and there are two kinds of backgrounds that I would discourage. One is someone with not enough experience who would not be able to properly put things in context; it has to be somebody who has some good work experience. Conversely, I would discourage someone who has too much experience in their background. You sometimes see people who are well into retirement who become ombudsmen, and they don't have the level of wherewithal, I would think, to do this job. This is not a ceremonial job. It's a job where you have to be prepared to slug it out.
I would think your ideal candidate would have legal training, would understand the machinery of government. Being a former military or not I think cuts both ways. I've seen former military members who've been in the military for 35 years and they can never see anything wrong with anything the military does. That's a problem. To answer succinctly your point, I think somebody with experience with the machinery of government with preferably a legal background.... These jobs are full of people who raise legal pretexts as reasons why they can't do things--for instance, the Privacy Act. You've heard it here that you can't oversee an administrative tribunal, which is patently false. You've heard that testimony here. I do it in Ontario; I oversee dozens of them. So a lawyer, someone with a legal background, can spot these smokescreens and be able to navigate around them, as opposed to being intimidated by them.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Anders
Mr. Stoffer, I apologize, but you're already 27 seconds over. We'll have a chance to come back, I'm sure.
Mrs. Hinton.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Betty Hinton Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
I'll begin by saying it's a pleasure to see you once again. I'm never bored with what you have to say. You're always very interesting. There might be people out in the listening audience who might feel that some of what you said may sound jaded, but I happen to think that it's your version of the unvarnished truth, and I appreciate that. It's refreshing to listen to.
The “ombuddy” model that you've outlined in here, I can tell you from my own personal perspective that's certainly not in my vision of what an ombudsman would be, and I don't believe it's the minister's version of it either.
The only thing I was interested to ask a little bit more about is since you're an ombudsman for Ontario, and this is going to be a national ombudsman, you were talking about what you do in Ontario. You oversee agencies and ministstries and crown corporations, but in the federal level we use an Auditor General for that. So this position federally I would envision as being specifically for veterans issues. Would you agree with that?
4:05 p.m.
Ombudsman of Ontario
Absolutely. I understand the things you're trying to draw. I was talking from my experience. There is also a provincial Auditor General who has Auditor General functions. The distinction between an Auditor General and an ombudsman is the following; an Auditor General conducts an audit of the money trail as well as conducts other accounting functions, such as value-for-money auditing. So think of the Auditor General as the paper trail. An ombudsman makes the decision. They look at the administrative decisions that are made with that money. That's the distinction, and it's an important distinction.
The function of an ombudsman would be to look at day-to-day policies and decisions and determine whether they are just, equitable, reasonable, or plain wrong. That's what my statute gives. You're completing the tag team. If you only have an Auditor General, which is what you have federally, you have a great ability to track money--we've all followed very closely what happened in the big Auditor General investigation that led to the Gomery commission--but you never follow the administrative decisions that were made with that money. You were looking at the misappropriation of funds and so on. That's the distinction between both. An Auditor General can co-exist very well with an ombudsman. I think both functions are complementary.