Veterans Affairs Committee on Oct. 16th, 2006

[Jack Frost]

I think a trial period should be six years. And depending on how it goes, the ombudsman role could go on indefinitely. I certainly think that six years would give you ample time to see if there's a requirement there for this individual to assist your constituents, who are veterans, and to help them through the bureaucracy.

[Pierre Allard]

A six-year mandate would allow the ombudsman to bridge the gap between two governments. This would preclude lending political overtones to the ombudsman position.

Getting back to Mr. Frost's views on the ombudsman's role, if the position was legally mandated, more than likely he would report to the government. However, if he reported only to the government, there could conceivably be a secretariat with which all ombudsmen would be associated. In that case, the head of the secretariat would be the one reporting to Parliament, whereas the different ombudsmen would report to their respective departments, given that we also believe in ministerial responsibility.

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

In my view, the ombudsman wields a certain authority over ministers. He has the authority to inform departments that they “dropped the ball”, so to speak.

If you haven't already done so, Mr. Allard, I recommend that...For starters, you propose a six-year term of office to ensure a transition that is not blemished by politics. I don't think politicians should have a say in this, regardless of their political affiliation, bet it Liberal, Péquiste, Bloquiste or otherwise. We're talking about parliamentarians. There's a difference between a politician and a parliamentarian. The ombudsman's mandate is to protect members of the public. Therefore, he answers to parliamentarians, not to a particular political party. His main job is that of public protector.

Furthermore, I don't know if you've had an opportunity to research the subject further. I've a suggestion to make which I will put to my colleagues after the meeting. Since 1984, Quebec has had its own ombudsman. He is known as the public protector. I recommend you check out a very good bilingual website on the subject. It will give you a better idea of the ombudsman's role, which clearly is that of a public protector.

Do I have any time remaining?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Twenty seconds.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

My question will take longer than 20 seconds.

In your opinion, would the ombudsman's status be equal to that of the Auditor General? Judging from your presentation, what's needed is an inspector to monitor the quality of institutional care and the use of financial resources. What type of work would the ombudsman actually be doing? Among other things, would he be auditing operations?

I'll put my question again later.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

They're welcome to respond if they wish, but the seven minutes are up.

[Jack Frost]

We can respond to that.

We advocated for an inspector general when we were looking at what we felt were moneys in the long-term care facilities that were being misused. We advocated for an inspector general who would have the authority to go in and examine the fiscal books to ensure that the moneys Veterans Affairs Canada was giving to these major centres was in fact being allocated to the veterans and not to a community body.

I wouldn't see the role of an ombudsman being the same, particularly whether he would have that authority if somebody brought it to his attention that they thought there was fiscal abuse going on. They could bring that to his attention and prepare the case in front of him, and if he so agreed, then at that time he could order a forensic audit if necessary.

So there is a difference. I think what you have to be sure of with the ombudsman—and I agree with what your colleague has just said—is protecting the interests of the citizen and the veteran. That is his primary responsibility, but he has to be given the authority to open every door necessary in order to reveal the facts he's looking for.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Mr. Stoffer, for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, Mr. Frost, congratulations on your appointment as president of this great organization. I happen to think—and I know I speak on behalf of the committee—that Mary Ann Burdett did a great job in her role as president.

I also want to thank the Royal Canadian Legion and their convention for a couple of issues that were brought up. I tend to read your magazine when it comes out. Thank you for your support on the ending of the clawback of the military and RCMP pensions at 65, as well as the disability one. I also thank you for your support to assist veterans in terms of allowing more of their pensions to go to their spouses when they pass on. Instead of the 50%, I believe you're advocating 66%, so I thank you for that advocacy.

There is one concern, of course. It's important that veterans and their families know there's another body that can advocate on their behalf if they have difficulty with a particular aspect of government—in this case, Veterans Affairs. But as you know, the DND ombudsman can just make reports and publish his findings for public record. He can slam the government and he can slam the department, but none of his things are binding in any way.

One of the concerns I've heard in a pessimistic manner from most people I've spoken to is that they're in support of a veterans ombudsman, but they're concerned about the fact that it may be another level of bureaucracy that doesn't have the teeth to force the government into something that should be straightforward, in their personal point of view. Have you or the Royal Canadian Legion in any way advocated that anything from the ombudsman should have binding rules upon the government or the department? Or should it be just an advocacy role and an exposure role to go through the department's concerns with a fine-tooth comb and basically make the report to Parliament and that would be it?

[Jack Frost]

I don't believe we've reached consensus on that. It's certainly an option. If it's decided that an ombudsman will be appointed, then this would be an issue that would have to be resolved from within the government. Do they want a binding role or just an exposure role?

If and when we get to that point, I suggest that you bring it up again. We can definitely sit down and discuss it.

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

We talk about the bill of rights for veterans, but most veterans are very concerned about their families, about what will happen when the veterans pass on. Some people would like to see a bill of rights for veterans and their families. You talk about the widows of veterans who are deemed not eligible for VIP. You talked earlier about the pension allotment that is allowed to be left behind.

There's a concern across the country regarding what is called the gold digger clause. If a veteran remarries before age 60 and then dies years later, his second spouse is entitled to his pension. But if that veteran marries at 60 or above, the second spouse is not entitled to anything. They call this the gold digger clause, and this is something a fair number of people want changed.

Would it not be helpful for a bill of rights for veterans to focus on the family, as the new Veterans Charter does?

I believe one of the reasons the Legion supported the new Veterans Charter was that it didn't concentrate only on the veteran. With respect to benefit packages, it also concentrated on the children and the spouse of the veteran.

[Jack Frost]

The Legion has always considered that its primary responsibility is to the veteran, with the veteran's family coming immediately after. This is enshrined in legislation today. Family rights could be included in the preamble of a bill of rights for veterans. That would enshrine their rights as well.

You mentioned the gold digger issue. The Legion has supported that issue in the past and will continue to support it. If a person remarries after the age of 60, the person should be entitled to the pension as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Mrs. Hinton.

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

Congratulations, Mr. Frost. I look forward to working with you and hearing what you have to say. It was an interesting introduction today.

I would like to begin by telling you that we find ourselves on the same side on at least one of the issues that has been raised: to find on the side of the veteran whenever there is any doubt. It's something I've advocated for years.

One of the problems that I have seen from the government side of the House is a backlog of casework. When we came in as a government, we inherited a backlog of 7,500 cases, which seemed absolutely ludicrous. I can assure you that we're trying our best to streamline things so that it doesn't take as long.

With respect to the gold digger and clawback issues, they are both defence issues, but it's certainly something that's important to every member around this table.

If you have any evidence of clawback, I would be more than happy to see it. I have been working on this issue for more than two years, and the only clawback I've seen regarding RCMP pensions is when a member chooses to take his pension at 60 instead of 65 and a lesser amount comes forward after 65. So if you're aware of any cases, I would be happy to see them. I've been looking for something I could actually nail down.

I was also interested to hear you say during your presentation that the Legion has long advocated for an ombudsman. I've been on this committee for several years, and I would differ with that opinion. It was very difficult to get the Legion to come on side, but I'm thrilled that you're on side now, and I think you're going to add something very substantive to our discussions.

Have you had an opportunity to look at any other countries that have both a bill of rights and an ombudsman?

[Jack Frost]

We've examined some of Australia's policies. In fact, Pierre, I'm quite sure, is well up to speed on them. They have some very good stuff that we're looking at, and possibly we would like to come back and discuss putting amendments forward to our present-day charter that has just been issued.

As far as the ombudsman goes, I'd quite frankly be a stranger to the truth if I said that I was a great believer in the ombudsman, say, two years ago. I felt there was a purpose and a place for him, and I've since changed my mind as far as the pension process. Prior to that, I felt that it was another level of bureaucracy that would only slow down a veteran's due process. But I've been shown a number of cases where a veteran has actually, out of his own pocket, spent many thousands of dollars to get the same due process that an ombudsman could have given. Therefore, although I always felt there was a place for one in the long-term care process, I'm quite willing to accept now that there's a need in the pension due process.

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

I'm absolutely delighted to hear that, and I'm also delighted to hear that you have brought yourself up to speed on Australia's process, because I'm sure, like me, you agree that there's no sense starting from square one when somebody's already got a pretty good system in place. In that case we should cherry pick the good parts out of that and save ourselves a lot of work.

Thank you very much for coming, and I'll pass on to Mr. Shipley.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you again. I also want to congratulate you. It's good to see Mr. Allard back out again. He's a faithful representative, I can say, at our meetings, and I think that always bodes well for your organization.

I'm going to go back to Mr. Stoffer's comment, just because I'm not sure.... You talked about a binding role for the ombudsman. Can you give me an example of where an ombudsman has a binding role, where in fact what they say becomes legislated? I'm just asking because usually, as Mr. Parent said, they're the advocate; they're the spokesperson for the process. If you have an issue with someone, they become your advocate or your right-hand person to help you walk through a bit. So I wasn't clear about that. I am just looking for an example, if there is one.

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

Mr. Shipley, you're correct, there isn't one. Ombudsmen don't have binding authority over a particular department; they just advocate. So Mr. Frost's initial concern about an ombudsman maybe being cumbersome or bureaucratic, or becoming another level of bureaucracy, was the initial concern that some people had about it. But most people I've spoken to have said that maybe another advocate, or another voice, to address your concerns would be a good thing.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Okay.

Could I go back to page 1 of your presentation, Mr. Frost. You've laid out the three areas or issues that you've brought up. One was the pre-1981 widows of veterans. With respect to the year 1981, is there a constitutional or legal aspect to that? I don't know what that is, but the 1981 is there.

[Jack Frost]

Presently the legislation is that after 1981, widows of veterans are eligible for VIP, but prior to that they're not.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I understand that, but I'm wondering if there's a particular reason for the 1981. I know Ms. Hinton mentioned that it was a DND issue, that basically it fell under that.

Under number 3, though, you talked about Canadian Forces vets being eligible immediately for access to critical care in the seventeen major long-term facilities and also in those facilities that VAC has contracts with. I wonder if you could help me with some of the concerns that are out there, just so that I understand. You don't have that there without a reason. Could you give me some illustrations of what's actually happening out in the field, so that we can all have a better understanding of what the impact is?

[Jack Frost]

Actually, I could go on for quite a long time.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

A long while? I only have seven minutes and you're part of them.

[Jack Frost]

I'm going to give Mr. Allard the opportunity. He has the short version.

[Pierre Allard]

I'll try to make it short.

The reality is that after World War II, in those seventeen major facilities where there were primary access beds, actually approximately 2,000 beds were reserved for critical care for veterans returning from that conflict. Over the years, these critical care beds had a different vocation. They were changed over to chronic beds because the department was dealing with veterans who were aging.

We now see some injuries coming out of Afghanistan. If you look at the statistics, 200 Canadian Forces personnel have been injured since we've been in Afghanistan. Some of those have received traumatic injuries that are putting them at risk, and they could be in those types of facilities possibly for the rest of their lives, which is why we're saying there's an immediate need in those specific facilities, in those primary access beds that the department controls.