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.
4:50 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, The War Amps
Yes. The 55 organizations represent approximately 400,000 traditional veterans.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
I was starting to shake there for a second when I heard “400”. So that's 400,000 veterans.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
Okay.
I want to clarify from Mr. Shipley's last question, and Mr. Forbes was involved with that as well, your opinion going back to the Woods report and the dissenting report as well--and I'm fine with your personal opinion, too--that the ombudsman being complementary or a next step for the Veterans Review and Appeal Board does not in any way constitute their activities being less essential here. In fact, if I heard Mr. Forbes correctly, if anything, the mandate should be broadened.
4:50 p.m.
Association Solicitor, The War Amps
I think I would share your view of “complementary”.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
But the role of the VRAB is affirmed in this sense, and the ombudsman, of course, would not only adjudicate or hear issues concerning pensions, but, as you said, the broader suite of services now that are available to veterans.
Again--and I think you'd have to give your personal opinion on this--over the years between the Woods report and now, is there anything, in your opinion, that has changed, where we need to look at the dynamics of the appointment of an ombudsman in a different light as compared to when that report came out?
4:50 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, The War Amps
No, not at all. It's a question of keeping everything simple, above board, and non-political, if that's possible. That's not a criticism, of course.
I would like to answer the question this way. After two years, Mr. Forbes and I began appearing before the Pension Review Board, not always with success, and we had to ask for interpretation hearings. On two occasions we took cases to the Supreme Court of Canada, both of which we won, but we didn't want to do that. If we had had an ombudsman, none of that would have been necessary, in my opinion. Now, that may be a pie in the sky, but that's the way I look at it.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
Okay.
You'd also mentioned that the Woods report gained new life in the last election with the talk of an ombudsman. Did you get a lot of response from these 400,000 members during that time of hope that an ombudsman would be appointed?
4:55 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, The War Amps
The answer to that is yes. We work on the system and let them know what you're proposing. I write to literally 55 different organizations and tell them that the Prime Minister has used the word “ombudsman”, tell them it's liable to come up again, and ask if they are prepared to support it the way they were before. The answer was yes, let's get on with it. There is some unhappiness--not as much as there was back in 1963, but there is some unhappiness about the system right now that we would like to see cleared up.
Do I think an ombudsman would work? I think the idea of an ombudsman deserves a fair shake. The idea deserves somebody to look at it beyond what I'm saying today, saying maybe you were giving up the ghost too soon.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm going back, Mr. Chadderton: for what reason was the Woods report commissioned ?
4:55 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, The War Amps
The Woods report was commissioned because several members of Parliament were very unhappy with the time the adjudication system required. There were many complaints, so the minister of the day, Mr. Roger Teillet, got the idea that we should have a royal commission. That was turned down, so they said they'd have a judicial committee. That's why it was brought into being--because the number of complaints was just ridiculous.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
And those complaints were basically related to pension issues?
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Okay. As you know.... I'll give you my personal view. I deal with a lot of veterans issues in Nova Scotia. Most of the complaints aren't pension-related. They're related to issues of service in terms of pharmaceutical coverage, eyeglasses, hearing aids, times to get a hospital bed, getting a lift from their basement to their bedroom, and all kinds of other issues that are not pension-related. They are service- and equipment-related.
With the modernization of something of this nature, if you were doing a report today--if you were asked today to do a commission--could I assume it would be more than just on pension advocacy?
4:55 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, The War Amps
It could be two things. It could look at all the problems that are coming from administration and it could set up in the ombudsman's workhouse a system that would allow him to be able to tell us whether these complaints are justifiable or not. That's the way I would look at it, rather than having another committee.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Okay.
This is my final question for you. A lot of individuals have concerns. They're veterans, but their issues are defence-related because of the legislation and statutes within the defence department, they're not necessarily veterans-related. If people have concerns and complaints, right now they either go through their MP, through the proper channels, or through the defence ombudsman.
If you're free to give me your own personal opinion, would you not see a possibility of expanding the defence ombudsman's role--give them the resources and tools and the people--in order to do both, instead of having two separate ombudsmen? As much as I support both ombudsman's positions, I sense there could be some confusion to people about who they go to. Could you see any role for expanding the defence ombudsman to include veterans issues or should they be two separate things?
4:55 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, The War Amps
I have to say no. My strong belief on the matter is that the defence ombudsman has a set of rules under which he's operating, and that's it.
With regard to keeping the two separate, it takes a long time to become familiar with our pension system. Once somebody is familiar with that, he should not have a foot in another camp.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Anders
I'm going to exercise the chair's prerogative to pick up a couple of questions, if I might.
On page 1, I was intrigued, where you said:
The Swedish word "Ombud" refers to a spokesperson or representative speaking for another person. It is generally considered as a substitute for lengthy and/or complicated issues normally handled by tribunals.
And then on page 2, you're referring to Judge Lindal:
...a man of Icelandic origin who was acknowledged as a world-renowned expert on the Scandinavian application of the role of Ombudsman in matters of adjudication and administration.
You've obviously had some experience, or certainly Judge Lindal has, with regard to the Swedish experiment.
It mentioned Scandinavia. I was wondering, are there other countries in Scandinavia that are particularly fond of ombudsmen and have experience related to that field as well?
5 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, The War Amps
The answer to that, sir, is that all of them do. It may not be experience in pension matters, but they all have an ombudsman system. Somebody not connected with, let's say, a widow's pension or whatever--outside of the veterans pension thing--can take a referral. Somebody calls him up to say, “Mr. Whatever-it-is, can you look at so-and-so?”; he'll say yes, and he will dig it out. They all operate with a system where somebody who's not connected with what happened, such as an adjudicator, is taken out of the picture, and the ombudsman comes into the picture and produces a fair report.
During the times we were there, no ombudsman had been relieved of his duty, for whatever reason, for something like 15 years. The system was working--no question.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Anders
Now, when you refer to “Scandinavia”, I'm assuming you're referring to Denmark, Norway, and Iceland. Am I missing any? Is Finland included in that as well?
5 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, The War Amps
Yes, Finland and Greenland. We stopped in Greenland, and I remember seeing how these people operated.
So it's really all the Scandinavian countries.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Anders
Do you know how long they've had those in operation and when they took effect?
Of course, a lot of issues are tied to our involvement in the First and Second World Wars. That's where we have a lot of our veterans. There's Korea, etc., and we have some from Afghanistan as well.
Do you know when they started that in the Scandinavian countries?