Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It's indeed an honour for me to be here this afternoon. It's a topic that I hold very close to my heart, and I want to say at the outset that I've been extremely impressed by the work this committee has conducted so far and the genuine concern for getting it right and for coming to terms with this position.
I'm the only one who will make an opening statement this afternoon. It will be about 10 or 15 minutes, and then we can go to questions.
I would like to thank the committee for inviting me here this afternoon to tell you my thoughts on the creation of a veterans' ombudsman position.
I have reviewed some of the transcripts of the hearings of this committee. I congratulate each and every one of you for your impartiality and your sincere concern for current and former members of our military forces.
The government's proposal to create such an office is an important one for our veterans, many of whom have grown disillusioned with their treatment, both at the hands of the Canadian Forces and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Although I appreciate the government's cautiousness in proceeding with the implementation of this commitment and its motivation to get it right from the get-go, I would respectfully submit to this committee that this initiative is, contrary to some of the self-serving testimony you've heard so far, mostly from Department of Veterans Affairs bureaucrats, neither a costly proposition nor a complex or legally problematic venture.
A bit of history might be useful to understand the evolution, or more appropriately the bastardization in some cases, of the term “ombudsman”. A good example of this testimony was when this committee heard the “expert” testimony of Keith Hillier, the assistant deputy minister at Veterans Affairs, who's in charge of the ombudsman file for the department, during which he professed to you that the term “ombudsman” has “yet to be defined”, as if frozen in a primitive state in a twilight zone somewhere. At times, he spoke of the term as if in flux, capable of morphing into different models, depending on people's competing views.
In fact, what an ombudsman is has been well established since the appointment of the first parliamentary ombudsman, Lars Mannerheim, in Sweden in 1809. It is the role of an ombudsman to investigate citizens' complaints against the administration and to make recommendations to fix maladministration. In order to effectively conduct business, the ombudsman must be independent, impartial, function confidentially, and enjoy a credible investigative process.
Following Sweden's lead, the appointment of an ombudsman became common in the Western world. Citizens and government administrations favouring democracy and good government rightly believed that the appointment of an ombudsman produced fairer and more equitable decision-making and policies.
The creation of Canadian ombudsman offices as checks and balances for bureaucracies started in the late 60s and continued until all but one province had their own offices.
In 1978, a bill was tabled in the House of Commons to create a federal ombudsman. The bill died as a result of an election call and was never revived. The federal government then proceeded with the establishment of commissioners with focussed and specialized jurisdiction, such as the Commissioner of Official Languages or the Information Commissioner. In effect, each acts as a specialized ombudsman overseeing a narrow field of jurisdiction.
Despite the goodwill that quickly amassed behind the notion of an ombudsman as an administration watchdog, the last decade has not been kind to ombudsmanship. In what some have described as the Americanization of the classical approach, universities and private and public sector organizations increasingly appoint ombudsmen concomitant with slick marketing campaigns as a sign that they care. These positions may have public relations value or be prized as human resources or customer relations assets, but ombudsmen they are not.
The umbrella organization for these entities that call themselves ombudsmen, ombudspersons, ombuds, ombuddies, or similar names is the International Ombudsman Association, the IOA. The IOA publishes standards of practice--which I will refer to as the “ombuddy” model--that in many respects are anathema to sound ombudsmen practices.
For example, the ombudsman, according to article 2.6 of these practice directives, does not recommend solutions, but rather “helps develop a range of responsible options to resolve problems and facilitate discussion to identify the best options”. Ombuds are also encouraged to develop “consistent and standard” practices of shredding and destroying records on a regular basis--article 3.6. The standards of practice admonish that they shall keep “no records containing identifying information on behalf of the organization”. That's in article 3.5. Another interesting prohibition is against formal investigations, which, according to article 4.5, are strictly forbidden. Not only is this type of ombudsman not in accordance with the classical notion of what it is to be an ombudsman, but it is an affront to all the basic tenets of ombudsmanship.
I suspect that when senior Veterans Affairs bureaucrats speak of the variety of different ombudsman models that exist, they are keeping a door open to the ombuddy model, a door I strongly submit ought to be slammed shut by this committee. Granted, it is tough medicine for bureaucrats to be told by elected representatives that they will be overseen by a watchdog, but to succumb to the ombuddy model would be seen by veterans as the ultimate betrayal of the sacrifices they made for this country.
In my review of the transcripts of witnesses you've heard from, what is highlighted is the need to create an ombudsman as a mechanism of voice to give veterans a big group hug and a shoulder to cry on. I haven't heard of voices from the bureaucracy advocating an empowered statutory office overseeing all aspects of Veterans Affairs, reporting to Parliament or to one of its committees such as this one, with subpoena power, power of entry, and offences provided for lack of cooperation.
My office has enjoyed similar powers for over 30 years over 500 different provincial government ministries, agencies, tribunals, and crown corporations. Any person in Ontario can complain against these bodies to the Ontario ombudsman's office, and they will have the confidence that their complaint will be thoroughly, independently investigated. Why should we offer any less to the veterans?
What I've read of the transcripts of senior officials is a no-can-do, not in my back yard approach that raises imaginary barriers that, if allowed to stand, will defeat the Government's stated and important commitment to creating an ombudsman for veterans.
For example, you were told by the Chair of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board as well as the Associate Deputy Minister that the Ombudsman could not look at how the Board considers a given file or intervene with the Board as it is an independent, quasi-judicial board. That is a misunderstanding of the role of ombudsman.
There is nothing in our common law that would prevent that kind of intervention. In fact, I oversee all administrative tribunals in Ontario, from the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal to the Assessment Review Board. Our office has had all these powers since 1975.
How can the Ombudsman co-exist with the judicial system?
Quite simply, the Ombudsman has only a recommendatory function and not an adjudicative one. The last word will always go to the governmental body to agree or not with the recommendation, while a court decision is binding.
There also exist umbrella organizations supporting the ombudsman function. The United States Ombudsman Association, or USOA, and the International Ombudsman Institute, or IOI—of which I am North America vice-president, incidentally—pride themselves on being guardians of the legislated and effective ombudsman model.
I have consulted both presidents of these associations in preparation for this appearance. They have asked me to convey to this committee their strong support for a legislated model, with its key characteristics of independence, impartiality, confidentiality, and credible investigations. I have submitted to the clerk originals of letters from these presidents, to become exhibits for this committee. I have distributed to each member of this committee the original English letter, with a French translation.
I will conclude by submitting to you that you are the last ray of hope for veterans, many of whom have simply lost faith in government. The Department of Veterans Affairs has historically strongly opposed the establishment of an ombudsman to look over their shoulder. Now they're being told by their elected government that they will get one, notwithstanding their philosophical objections. It is now up to you, as a non-partisan committee of Parliament, to help the government shoulder this initiative so that veterans truly have an ally to slay administrative injustice. Do not be inadvertently swayed into supporting what could become a mere facade of an ombudsman's office.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
