Evidence of meeting #11 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 ombudsman.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, The War Amps
--like I do, and you move to Ottawa, you don't get a chance to use your French any longer.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Gilles-A. Perron Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
I'd like to give you my definition of an ombudsman, and you will tell me whether it makes sense or not.
In my opinion, an ombudsman is independent, and I would emphasize the word “independent”. His role is to examine complaints made by members of the public with respect to a specific administration or department. Is that correct?
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Gilles-A. Perron Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Based on my definition and the answer you gave my colleague, I would like you to tell me to whom the ombudsman is supposed to be accountable: to the Government or to the Department?
4:05 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, The War Amps
His decision must go in writing, and it would go back to the person who generated the referral to the ombudsman in the first place. So it could be the minister's office, it could be a veterans organization....
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Gilles-A. Perron Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
I'm really asking you who is supposed to be his boss: the Department or the Government?
4:05 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, The War Amps
I think the secret of an ombudsman is that he's appointed by Parliament. He reports to Parliament. The Woods report gave two years to see whether the system worked or not.
To whom does he report? Sir, he reports to whoever made the reference. If it was from the minister's office, he gives his advice to the minister; if it was from an individual member of Parliament, it's the same thing: he gives his advice to the individual member of Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Gilles-A. Perron Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
The reason why I feel uncomfortable about his reporting to the Department is that the Minister of Veterans Affairs would then be his boss. In that case, how can he then criticize or question a departmental decision? No one wants to bite the hand that feeds him.
4:05 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, The War Amps
Yes, I like the obligation that you don't bite the hand that feeds you, but somewhere within the system there has to be a better means of adjudication than the one we were enjoying when the Woods commission first sat. The whole system was bogged down with complaints. It was taking as long as four years to get a decision, sir, so we asked what would be quicker, but still fair. The answer--and this may be something that's not possible--is that if the minister's office or a member of Parliament or a veterans organization made a referral to the ombudsman, then the ombudsman's report goes back to them. He's not saying yes or no.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Gilles-A. Perron Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Let's try and keep both our answers and questions short, so that we can cover as many topics as possible.
If the Minister of Veterans Affairs were to be responsible for appointing the ombudsman, would his candidacy have to be reviewed by a Government screening committee?
4:05 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, The War Amps
Yes; he's appointed by order in council on recommendation of Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Gilles-A. Perron Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
There is a difference between a recommendation and a screening committee. A screening committee would give Members of Parliament the opportunity to say that a candidate was not suitable. On the other hand, with a recommendation, a certain amount of pressure can be enough to ensure that a candidate will be accepted.
4:05 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, The War Amps
Mr. Chairman, I will try to answer, but I will say that the Woods report was 450 pages and the answer is in there. What the answer is, in simple terms, is what I've given--that is, whoever initiated the application is the one who gets the decision. Mind you, the decision doesn't say to give him a pension; the decision simply says to reconsider or review, or that they agree, or that it's frivolous, or what have you, sir.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Gilles-A. Perron Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
I believe my question has resulted in a misunderstanding. I'd like to move on to something else now.
What should the term of the ombudsman's first mandate be: two years, five years, or ten years? Do you have any particular opinion in that regard? If it is decided to go with a longer term, should a removal process be provided for, in a case where the person's performance is not satisfactory?
4:10 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, The War Amps
Yes, I believe the committee looked at that carefully. What they said was two years--to put the appointment in and give it two years--but that there will be an automatic mandate to review in two years' time, sir.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Gilles-A. Perron Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Do you believe the ombudsman should also be monitored by the Auditor General, who conducts investigations in all the departments? Should this ombudsman be included in the Government's general auditing system?
4:10 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, The War Amps
Monsieur, that was not contemplated by the Woods committee. They said they would lay down the law on how he should be appointed. They said to give it two years, and if it worked, fine. They did not say there would be a review by the Auditor General or anything like that. They simply said two years would be enough time to know if it was going to work.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Gilles-A. Perron Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
I am very proud of the Auditor General. She is the one that brought to light the sponsorship scandal.
I'm fast.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Anders
You were fast. Monsieur Perron, we gave you an extra minute and 13 seconds, based on difficulties with the translation.
We now move to the NDP, Mr. Stoffer.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thanks, Mr. Chadderton and Mr. Forbes, for coming today.
One of the comments I've heard from some groups is on whether there is any consideration to combine the so-called veterans ombudsman with the defence ombudsman--in other words, expand the current powers of the defence ombudsman or the military one and have the department expanded so that individual can do both.
For example, if you take a situation such as the one for Helen Rapp, of whom you are aware, she is the widow of a veteran who married past 60. She's not entitled to any pension benefits because of the fact that they married past 60. Her argument is not with the veterans affairs department. Her argument is with the defence department, although her husband was a veteran.
The other example is those veterans with SISIP and the clawback of the disability payment that they received. It's under review by the defence committee. Veterans are going to the defence ombudsman in that regard.
Have you given any thought or consideration to the possibility of, instead of having two ombudsmen, having one with expanded powers?
4:10 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, The War Amps
Mr. Stoffer, our mandate was to come up with a system that would result from a review of the present pension situation. That's the Department of Veterans Affairs.
My personal views, of course, are not what I'm putting forward today. I'm only telling you my definition, or whatever you like, of the ombudsman as it was in the Woods report to Parliament.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Right. As you would know, more than anyone else, you are aware that veterans have a lot of issues, not only pension-related issues.
If an ombudsman of veterans affairs were established, the individual in that office would be extremely busy. With modern-day veterans and their families and the various issues and concerns with which they are coming forward, especially now with the interpretation of the new Veterans Charter, I can see this individual, as you say, interpreting, questioning, and reviewing various pieces of legislation at length.
I'm wondering about the two-year process for a review of this ombudsman. Is it fair that the individual should have to be reviewed in two years? It will probably take him two years to get his feet wet in this regard.
4:15 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, The War Amps
If he read the report and saw the atmosphere in which it came forward, because we were in a panic with regard to how we were handling veterans claims, he would say he had better find a solution. The solution might simply be that he was sorry, but it was beyond his jurisdiction, or whatever.
We were looking for a stopgap, if you like, and that's one of the roles that the ombudsman can play. He can make sure there's an independent investigation, but he could not go beyond veterans affairs into the ombudsman's role of national defence.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Were you asked in any way to elaborate on, if you were setting up the ombudsman office, how many employees should they have, where would they be located, and what would be the annual budget of an office of that nature? Were you asked for your advice or an opinion on that?
4:15 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, The War Amps
Yes, sir. It is all contained in the other 60 or 70 pages of Judge Lindal's report on the ombudsman. It would be unfair for me, just off the corner of my desk, to say I know what it is. We know roughly what it was because there was too much being spent on pension administration.
Generally, the Woods report said that if we spent $1 million last year, we have to cut it down and find a more inexpensive way to handle pension applications. It was the guideline under which we operated.