Veterans Affairs Committee on Oct. 16th, 2006

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Let me give you an example of something that happens now.

We have a veteran who loses both his legs in the service of his country. He comes back and, for whatever reason, he decides he's going to leave the military. He'll receive a pension and he'll receive all the assistance that VAC can give him. Then, of course, he realizes that because of maybe PTSD or his injuries, he can no longer work again anywhere else. He's then advised to apply for a Canada pension disability. He applies and he probably will receive it. The amount that he receives from a Canada pension disability is immediately reduced by the amount he receives in his superannuation, his forces pension. He's not 65, but that happens immediately. If that person wanted to advocate that change—and this is a veteran now—you would have a veteran going back to DND and looking to change this. Do you not see a possible confusion in direction that the veteran may have in this particular issue?

[Pierre Allard]

In actuality, under the new Veterans Charter, he could apply for rehabilitation, and he could be rehabilitated even though he may have lost his two legs. He could have psychosocial or any type of rehabilitation that would allow him to be employable again. Under the new Veterans Charter, he could be getting, first of all, a disability award for that disability, and probably economic loss, which would guarantee him 75% of his previous salary.

The fundamental principle is that the needs of the Canadian Forces member and the needs of the veteran are different. That's why you have a Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. That's why there is a Department of National Defence and there is a Department of Veterans Affairs.

Having said that, if you populate the secretariat with various ombudsmen, like the Canadian Forces ombudsman, like the veterans ombudsman, and maybe one for health, then maybe if they have common problems, they can talk to each other and try to resolve those problems. If I understand it correctly, that's the Australian model, in which there is this secretariat that is an umbrella organization for a number of ombudsmen.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Very good.

Also, prior to the appointment of an ombudsman for Veterans Affairs, would you like to have input as to the makeup of that individual? For example, should that person have military experience? Should that person have legal experience? You may not get both, but what would you think should be the criteria for an individual in that particular position? If you, for example, were appointing someone to be the Veterans Affairs ombudsman, what qualifications should that person have?

[Jack Frost]

I believe he should have a legal background. I don't necessarily believe he would require a military background. Certainly if he had some medical in his background, I'm sure that would help too, but that's not a decision we really want to make. We're more prepared for and would like to see the reporting structure than we are for who is actually picked.

[Pierre Allard]

And if there is an advisory council, then obviously the voice of veterans and ex-Canadian Forces members can be heard to give advice to the ombudsman.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Mrs. Hinton, you have five minutes, if you wish, and then Monsieur Perron is on deck.

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

Actually, I don't have a specific question. I always find these meetings to be very informative. No matter how many years you sit on this committee, you always learn something from each meeting that you come to, and your input has been invaluable. I've read your web page, and I think it's a great first step. I also agree that you're a resource as a Legion. You're an invaluable resource, so why in the world wouldn't government consult you on some issues that they want to deal with?

You pointed out very well, Mr. Allard, the difference and the fact that we have a separate committee from the defence committee. I have served on both the defence committee and the veterans affairs committee. There's a lot of overlap, but sometimes it became extremely difficult to change hats, to know where to be.

On the veterans issues, it's about being a bit of a pit bull, if you'll excuse that horrible analogy, since people don't particularly care for pit bulls. I have had a lot of veterans who have done everything they could possibly do to resolve their own problems. They've gone to the Legion, and the Legion has done everything it could possibly do to resolve the problems. But there comes a time when you hit a wall, and this ombudsman, in my opinion anyway, is supposed to be the ladder up that wall. These are men and women who have fought for their country, who have served Canada well, and who have run into a brick wall, and there's nobody extra there to help.

Mr. St. Denis mentioned today that members of Parliament are in fact ombudsmen for their constituents. I agree that we are, but what happens when you happen to live in an area where your particular MP isn't really interested in veterans issues and somebody who lives in a riding adjacent to you has an MP who is extremely interested in the issues? We need to have some kind of a balance there so that all veterans, regardless of where they live in this country, have equal access to an ombudsman.

I also would like to examine more thoroughly—which this committee is going to do—the whole Australian concept. I'm sure they have found some pitfalls over the years since it's been in place. If there are pitfalls, then we'll know about them in advance and we can avoid those pitfalls. And we'll also learn about the things they maybe didn't emphasize as well, and then we'll make sure that we do emphasize those parts that are important.

Going back to another comment that was made earlier about your membership, though, I, too, would like to see the membership of the Legion grow. Like Mr. Shipley, prior to my becoming involved politically, the Legion was veterans to me. So I'd like to see them play a stronger role. There may be some things that need to happen at your level that would encourage younger veterans to come in, but I would encourage you to do those things, because the stronger the Legion is, the better the advocacy role is. You've done a marvellous job as advocates over the years. I wouldn't want to see that diminished at all. I'd like to see that stay as strong as it has been, and perhaps even grow.

So thank you very much for coming. I'll give you the rest of my time to say whatever it is you might like to say as a finish.

[Jack Frost]

That's a hard act to follow, Mrs. Hinton. I thank you very much for your compliments.

Certainly there's the issue of our declining membership, which now is in the neighbourhood of 400,000. At one time we peaked at 602,000. We still maintain the same services and programs as 15 years ago, but it's getting harder and harder. We've cut some bells and whistles out of our programs, which we certainly miss.

As I indicated when I was installed as president, membership was going to be my number one priority, and I would be in the face of all the other directors about how we were going to increase it and go forward from 2006.

Thank you very much.

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

I have a closing remark as well, and it is strictly personal. Remembrance Day is coming up on November 11. It's something I never miss. I'm so encouraged by the number of children, which increases every year, and I give you full credit for helping to increase those numbers. You've done a wonderful job of making them aware, as have a number of other veterans groups.

I look forward to November 11 for two reasons. I go to all the legions that I can get to in my riding, and I also go to ANAVETS. Without a second's hesitation, I can tell you that I get my legs danced off that night and I love it. There is no dancer like a veteran. So I take my dance card, it gets filled, and I have a wonderful time.

Thank you for being a part of that, and thank you once again for the role you've played in letting children know how important veterans are to this country.

[Jack Frost]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

There you go.

Now we'll move on to Monsieur Perron, with Mr. Cuzner on deck.

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

I'd like to take a few moments to focus on a definition that is perhaps poorly understood. I think we need to talk about the ombudsman's role. As I understand it, his role is to receive complaints, either from an individual or group, -- for instance, an association -- alleging that something in the system isn't working well, that there's a problem of some kind.

After receiving the complaint, the ombudsman must investigate to determine if the complainant -- be it an individual or an association -- is justified or not in making the complaint and whether an inquiry is warranted. If problems are discovered upon due investigation of the complaint, the ombudsman is required to make recommendations to the department, that is to either the minister, the deputy minister or a departmental representative, with a view to settling the complaint and ensuring the problem doesn't spread.

For that reason, the ombudsman shouldn't be taking orders from the department, or for that matter, issuing any either. To guarantee neutrality, the ombudsman must report to Parliament. Were he accountable to a political party or to a particular department, he would be caught between a rock and a hard place. By being accountable to Parliament, he can take on the role described by Mr. St. Denis, that is the role that Members of Parliament assume daily, although we don't necessarily have the same knowledge and the department doesn't listen to us as it would to an ombudsman.

For that reason, I disagree that an ombudsman should be a departmental employee. Once again, I'd like to call to mind my friend André Marin who served admirably as DND's ombudsman. He prepared a solid report on Quebec's health insurance system, emphasizing what was taxable and what was not and pointing out that some individuals were being shafted. His report was so on point that the Minister of National Defence informed him that he would need to look for another job after July 5, 2005. He dared bite the hand that fed him. And he suffered the consequences.

[An. hon. member]

As everyone well knows.

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

For that reason, the ombudsman must be free to defend the interests of ordinary constituents, and not be bound by a departmental policy or some such thing. He shouldn't have to choose between the hand that feeds him and his job.

These are my views on the subject. If you have anything further to add, Pierre and Jack, by all means go ahead. I simply wanted to give you some food for thought. We can discuss this matter again another time.

Again, thank you for joining us.

[Jack Frost]

Certainly, I'd love to discuss this with you further, Mr. Perron. I couldn't agree with you more in your comments. You're spot on about where the ombudsman has to be independent, and as you said, he can't be afraid of getting bit by the person he's reporting to. But in this case he's reporting to Parliament and not the minister--in the ideal situation. So it would be an ideal situation. In fact, I don't see how he would be sent looking for another job.

Nothing is impossible.

I would point out that, as you know, Mr. Marin has a great job in Ontario today--

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

And he's doing a good job, too.

[Jack Frost]

And he's doing a good job.

I would let my colleague here further amplify what I just said.

[Pierre Allard]

I believe we're not that far apart, as far as the role of the ombudsman is concerned. That role involves conducting investigations, doing analyses, making recommendations and suggestions and ultimately going back to the VRAB and advising it to perhaps review its decision, in view of the facts brought to light. All of these appeal levels are prescribed by legislation.

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

And they are function of the way in which regulations and laws are interpreted.

[Pierre Allard]

Of the way in which regulations, laws and policies are interpreted. On the other hand, perhaps the same result could be achieved by adopting the Australian model, where we have a secretariat with a chief who reports to parliament and subordinate ombudsmen who in turn report to ministers.

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

And what about the Quebec model? Consider the protocol...There are 25 separate departments.

[Pierre Allard]

Still, there is question of ministerial responsibility and accountability to Parliament...

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

There's no need to look to Australia when you have the Quebec model.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Now who's talking?

I love our characters.