Would you like a comment on that, sir?
Evidence of meeting #7 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 rights.
Evidence of meeting #7 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 rights.
4:45 p.m.
As an Individual
I agree with you 100%. In fact, in the investigations that Mr. Marin made throughout the world, whether they be in Norway, Israel, or Germany, about the ombudsman models, and here in Canada with both private and public sector, one of the key factors was they had the big stick. Because they had it, they didn't have to use it. It brought the parties to the table and it brought about resolution.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
As an Individual
If I may, I would just like to touch on another reason why the ombudsman is important.
The Bureau of Pensions Advocates was set up so that any veteran or client of the Department of Veterans Affairs would have access to a legal advocate. The problem is that like the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, it is seen to be part of VAC. Therefore, trying to get veterans to trust lawyers who work within the department is itself a problem. Knowing that you're dealing with an independent body may encourage people to come forward and state what they have in terms of a grievance.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Anders
All right, thank you.
Now it's over to our friends at the Bloc.
Monsieur Perron.
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Gilles-A. Perron Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Sean, you made me jump when you said that, as an individual, you should be able to... I agree, but we're not there. We're at the stage of finding an ombudsman.
I'm going to try to speak on your behalf, colleagues. The problem we're facing as parliamentarians is to establish an act, regulations, a person on whom there is a consensus. To do that, we can't take the liberty of knocking on the doors of 250,000, 300,000 or 350,000 people. So we have to try to establish a general average.
I'm aware that the laws we make are not fair laws, but they are laws made for the average person. One law will never satisfy the people at the ends of the spectrum. We're trying to make a law that will please most people and that will be fair for most of them.
When we discuss a given file, we have to have a general vision that reflects that of the average person. We think it's increasingly interesting that people come and talk to us after theoretically questioning the members of their associations.
If, for example, you represent 50,000 people from your association, you're speaking on behalf of those 50,000 people. That's why it's important that groups come and meet with us to tell us about what's working and what's not working and so they can tell us their vision for an ombudsman.
I'm clarifying that point because you made me uncomfortable when you said you'd like to speak as an individual. If you want to make comments on the subject, you're welcome.
4:50 p.m.
As an Individual
Once again, I think this is insightful and it cuts right to the heart of the matter, Mr. Perron. I agree with you 100%. This is why an ombudsman is so important.
When an organization says that they represent x number of individuals, whether it be in favour of a charter or whether it be in favour of a bill of rights, Canadians trust--and I think as parliamentarians you have to trust--that they're telling you the truth, that they do actually represent the views of their membership.
However, in the case of something like the Veterans Charter, it was absolutely impossible for those representatives to have consulted their membership. That's the tragedy in the whole deal. I agree that we cannot go and talk to 210,000 Veterans Affairs clients. That would be absolutely absurd. But the department has made things highly secretive and highly inaccessible. For instance, the Veterans Affairs CF Advisory Council provided excellent work, but its minutes were never made public and it was suspended without notice. The members, to this day, have never received a letter telling them why they don't meet any more.
The special needs advisory group was in the same situation in terms of secrecy. They were sworn to confidentiality, not just about taking the testimony of individual clients but about all the issues discussed. In the Canadian fashion, I think there can be a middle road. We can't consult with everyone, but we can certainly do a lot better than the secrecy that has been carried out so far.
The Legion set an excellent example with their bill of rights. They posted it on their website and asked for input from their membership. In that sense, we have faith that this does represent a large number of their members. Why can't Veterans Affairs do the same thing in terms of reaching out, especially with the high-technology forums we have today?
Apparently, the bill of rights is now sitting at its fourth or fifth draft. Not one of the general VAC clientele has access to even one draft, nor have the committee members seen one. From a personal point of view, I think it's absolutely absurd that there's no accountability and transparency in such a consultation process.
4:50 p.m.
As an Individual
Just to add to that, I was an executive member on one of the six organizations, and I have yet to see any passage of the bill of rights. I'm a member of that organization. I haven't been consulted, and I'm at the executive level. People aren't being consulted, and that's just an example. That needs to change.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Roger Valley Liberal Kenora, ON
Thank you.
I want to clarify what I thought I heard when I asked you about a perfect world—and we all know it's not a perfect world. I thought I heard you mention that to get this ombudsman in place, your thoughts would be to have somebody start in a couple of weeks, while the program was being designed. Is it correct that this is what I heard?
4:50 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes, at this point it is. For instance, if the DND/CF ombudsman is going to be involved in the process, then this office should be sitting down right at the table to see what sorts of mechanisms are being discussed—mandate, role, vision.
If it's too difficult to decide on this individual at this point, then appoint an interim independent body or a person to do such a thing, someone who would have the respect of all the political parties concerned. There would be an independent voice there for oversight, objectivity, and impartiality—all the concepts we talk about an ombudsman's office representing. Those concepts also have to be in the creation process and not only in the operation of the ombudsman's office.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Roger Valley Liberal Kenora, ON
With that person in place, then, you would be able to live with the amount of time it took to get it right, because you'd be providing the service to the veterans that you see fit.
A number of times it has been mentioned—I mentioned it and you've mentioned it a couple of times—that we're starting on a process. My question to you in the end is going to be, what other avenues are open to you?
You're here before us today. You're talking about it. You feel we're taking a few missteps, if I could put it that way, by appointing the assistant deputy minister. You're saying it's “neither accountable nor transparent”. You have an issue with this.
What other avenues are open to you besides coming to us? Have you made this presentation to the minister? How else do you carry this very strong point? You've obviously thought about this a lot. How do you carry it forward? What other avenues are open to you?
4:55 p.m.
As an Individual
Thank you for asking that question. In fact, I have carried out all those mechanisms. I have spoken directly with the minister personally. He was very generous in providing me with two hours of his time back at the end of March, just before the passage of the new veterans charter, and I made this point very clear to him, that the ombudsman comes first, not the bill of rights.
In the case of Mr. Hillier, I also made it very clear to him, with all due respect, that he should not be the one writing it up. He said, “Well, who should be writing up the bill of rights?” The ombudsman should be, because it's a bill of rights that is supposed to ensure independence, impartiality, and fair and equal treatment for all.
It's the rights of veterans. Veterans Affairs should not be writing up the rights of their clientele. As you said, it's the fox running the henhouse.
I'm grateful for those mechanisms. They have still fallen on deaf ears, so I have a great deal of hope that the fact that this is a standing committee and that you ladies and gentlemen are all very passionate about this issue will mean you'll be able to make sure the process and the end results are impartial, effective, and independent.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Roger Valley Liberal Kenora, ON
That begs the question of whether we are going to have time, if they're writing this up as we speak. We know we're about to go into a period when the House is not sitting, so how are we going to have an impact on this? This process is going to carry on when this House closes for the summer break. Are there any other options open to you?
4:55 p.m.
As an Individual
Well, there's the ombudsman option. The most powerful tool of the ombudsman is always to bring this issue to the public eye. At the same time, I think all avenues have to be exhausted before we go that route.
There is nothing wrong with the minister at this point taking it away from the ADM, thanking him for his wonderful work, and then giving it to this independent person, who could be decided on in the next two weeks—that person, or that committee, does not have to be the ombudsman. They could work over the next 10 weeks.
To give you an example, André Marin, with his paper The Way Forward, started from scratch with absolutely nothing in September 1998. In December 1999, he handed the minister a 250-page analysis that went through great, exhaustive analyses of all ombudsman models and recommended the model we eventually came to have today. That was eventually published in January, 1999.
We're only talking there about a period from September to January. That's why I say this could easily happen before December.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Roger Valley Liberal Kenora, ON
I would suggest to you that we have our job to do and we will do the best we can with the committee and the 12 members who make it up. You have tools and you have some very strong language. I can tell you, this government's mantra is “accountable and transparent”. So you can use your own words against them, if that's what you're seeking.
Thank you.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Anders
Fair enough.
Now we'll go over to the government side. We have five minutes on the Conservative side for whoever wishes to pick them up.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
I've only got one actually.
I want to go back to Mr. Gray's comment earlier when he talked in terms of the diagnosis and the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. I think there was a concern that many of those diagnoses that an individual goes to the board with come from a doctor--you go to the doctor, so most of those are medical. It's a doctor's diagnosis and it has recommendation on it. Yet there's a sense that it's not recognized. Is there a concern that the makeup of the board then--I don't know how it's made up, quite honestly--maybe doesn't have the professional people required on it, the right medical and military makeup, who would be seen to understand the situations that come before the board?
4:55 p.m.
As an Individual
Thank you very much, Mr. Shipley.
I mentioned Harold Leduc. He was hopefully the turning point in terms of the type of person VRAB is going to be appointing. He has a long-term involvement in veterans legislation, and even though he was a member of an organization and the president who started it up, he had always taken an independent and impartial view to respecting the rights of all veterans, no matter what war, rank, or age they had or where they came from.
Yes, there has to be a mix of three factors on the board. There has to be, as you said, Mr. Shipley, medical expertise, there has to be legal expertise, and there has to be an understanding, when they make their decision, of the military culture that wrote those files, that created the person who's sitting in front of them. I think having two without the third would be a great loss and a disservice to the veterans.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
My concern would always be that it gets.... I don't know, but I'd hate to see it overloaded with political.... That's not what this is about. It's about having the expert people on that review board who can make the best judgments, and make those in an efficient and effective manner.
5 p.m.
As an Individual
The one step that most concerns me is in the making of the first assessment within the department, and that was what I was addressing in my comment. When a person is released from the military they go through a process of review, and it's determined whether or not they should be retained, retrained, or released. When a person is released, they can be released for a number of different reasons, one of which is medical reasons. In order to be released medically, you must have a condition that precludes you from doing certain things in the military. That is all based on what a doctor, or doctors, think.
When that gets sent over to VAC, someone unknown--because it's very difficult to ascertain from the department who makes these assessments--decides at what level of the table of disabilities you will fall. If more of these decisions initially were better made and were made with accountability and transparency, then there would not be an average of 6,000 cases annually going to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.
I mentioned 6,000 because on average there are only 4,000 releases from the military every year. So this indicates to you that there's a gross difference between how many people appeal and how many people get released. I can't say specifically what the percentage is, but to me it means there are too many people questioning the initial assessment.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Rota Liberal Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON
May I ask a question that Mr. Cuzner asked?
Mr. Gray quoted something and Mr. Cuzner asked if he could have a copy of that quote. I'm not sure what it was because it was right when it started. He asked me to say that, and unfortunately I ran out of time. But if he can get a copy of that or if you want to make it available to the committee...could we get a copy of that report?
