Veterans Affairs Committee on Dec. 4th, 2006

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

No comment?

Thank you for joining us as well, nice quiet person at the back of the room.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Okay, now we're on to Monsieur Perron from the Bloc.

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

Mr. Winzenberg, you made it very clear at the beginning of your presentation that you did not represent the Australian government or veterans and that you were not authorized to speak on their behalf. Rather, you were here to share your experience with us as a public servant. Therefore, I'd like to ask you a question, as a public servant. Therefore, forget your government. We won't hold you to account or report back to your government, if ever you were to say something it might not like.

I'll use two ombudsmen as an example, since we have several in Canada who do work similar to that of your ombudsmen. I'll select two provincial ombudsmen and talk to you a little about the appointment process. I'd like to get some comments from the person seated in front of me, not from Roger, or from the Australian official.

The government of Ontario has its own ombudsman, as does the nation of Quebec.

[Some hon. members]

Oh! Oh!

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

It's quite acceptable to use the expression “Quebec nation” in this forum.

In Quebec, an offer of employment is made. The premier reviews possible candidates. Ultimately, the premier's office reviews the applications, because the premier is too busy, especially these days. He's a Liberal and is therefore far too busy. The premier studies the recommendations made to him and selects a person for the position. The candidate who has been selected must be endorsed by 66 per cent of the members of either the House of Commons in Ottawa, or the National Assembly in Quebec. That's how the whole process works. It's much the same if the ombudsman is fired. The House of Commons must agree to the firing.

Is the system too complex? In your opinion, is it acceptable? Again, let me repeat that I would like the official to answer my question.

[Roger Winzenberg]

While in the public service you never get away from who your ultimate employer is.

As I said at the start, we have an Australian system that works pretty well. The parliamentarians have a part of that process through the government of the day, and it's the parliamentarians who form the government of the day, normally the majority in the lower house, the House of Representatives, or House of Commons in your terms. So to that extent, they are involved in the process.

What sort of formulation you want to use in a technical sense to either appoint or remove an ombudsman is a matter for you. That's all I'd want to say.

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

Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

All right. Thank you, Monsieur Perron.

Now, Mr. Valley, I believe you indicated you'd like to have five minutes.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Yes, I'd just like to share very quickly my question.

When we've had witnesses here, we've heard a lot about problems with record-keeping, and we're talking about setting up a separate ombudsman for veterans affairs. We have one for the military right now.

You are from the veterans affairs department. Is record-keeping a problem in your area? We're talking about going back into veterans' histories to find issues that can help us with the health care we provide, and everything else. If your records are better than ours, is it because your ombudsmen's offices are together and working closely together?

[Roger Winzenberg]

We have a very good relationship with our colleagues at the Department of Defence. When a veteran applies for a pension or a benefit from us, we make arrangements with our defence colleagues to have their service and medical records shipped over. But in-house, in our department, if the veteran's pension claim is rejected for whatever reason and the veteran complains to the ombudsman, and the ombudsman needs to cite or get those records—and he has that power under the legislation—then we would comply with any request and normally provide him with certified copies.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

So it's cooperation, then.

But do you have—I don't want to call them “vacancies”—the difficulties with records, when you go back over decades and decades, that we sometimes encounter, or that we've heard about here?

[Roger Winzenberg]

I think it's true to say there are issues with very old records, but our legislation gives the department the power to use the benefit of the doubt in determining claims. If there were an absence of a record, but the proposition being put was reasonable and made sense in terms of other veterans in similar circumstances, normally the department would err on the side of giving the veteran the benefit of the doubt, notwithstanding the absence of the record, and would grant the benefit.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Unless we have any Liberals or Conservatives who wish to add more questions.... No? Okay.

I'd just like to say thank you very much for appearing before us today. We deeply appreciate your taking the time to do it. I think you've put more flesh and meat yet again on the bones of what we're doing here. It's great that you guys have been doing this for about 30 years; we're gleaning from your wisdom and experience in these things.

Thank you very much for appearing today.

[Roger Winzenberg]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

We'll allow a couple of minutes for our witnesses to clear up. There are a couple of issues we have to deal with for our next committee meeting.

I'll just let people make their goodbyes, giving that a minute or two.

The two issues I have to raise are that we've had Mr. Hillier indicate he would like to speak before the committee on this issue. There is an understanding that he thought there was a clarification that needed to be made with regard to some of the presentations.

We have that to consider, and also the question of Mr. St. Denis' Bill C-287 and how we'll proceed with the study on it.

The first question we'll entertain is whether or not we'll have Mr. Hillier as a witness at Wednesday's meeting. Is there any debate on that?

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

This coming Wednesday?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Oui.

Is everybody is in agreement with that?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

This week?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

That's correct, yes.

So Mr. Hillier will be in on Wednesday.

The second issue would be for the subsequent Monday, the study of Bill C-287, Mr. St. Denis' bill. The question is whether or not we're going to be having witnesses to that effect. I understand there are some witnesses we're just.... Let's put it this way: I believe the department would like to appear on the bill.

Mrs. Hinton.

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

I was just going to say that we're in the process of trying to confirm some witnesses from VAC, from DND, and from Heritage. We'll try to have some confirmation available as soon as possible.

My concern about moving to Mr. Denis' bill, which I happen to agree with, is that we haven't taken even the first steps for the bill of rights yet, and I don't know why we're putting a second thing in front of something that's been in front of us since last spring. We only have an opportunity to talk about your particular bill for two meetings and then the House breaks for Christmas.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

We're taking a list of speakers. We've had Mrs. Hinton. Now we're on to Monsieur Gaudet.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

You said that Mr. St. Denis' bill was C-287. What is the bill all about?

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

The aim of this bill is to have a day formally designated as National Peacekeepers' Day.