Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Order.

Monsieur Côté, we appreciate your appearing today. You know, of course, that we had the previous ombudsman for National Defence and the Canadian Forces here. I appreciate your coming today. As you know, we're doing our study on the ombudsman.

I hope you have the questions that our research analyst has prepared with regard to some of the issues we're looking at. We're making sure that as people do their presentations on the ombudsman issue they have an understanding of some of the questions we've been examining.

[Yves Côté, Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman]

I don't think I have a copy of those.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

We're looking to get you one, I believe. Some of the members here want to make sure that all the presenters have a copy so that they understand the logical syllogism we're going forward with on the ombudsman question.

Once again, I appreciate your presence here. We'll give you about 20 minutes, the way we usually do. You can, if you wish, split your time with your colleague for ten minutes each, or however you see fit. After that, we'll open it up to questions and play it by ear.

Once again, I apologize for starting late today, but you have some appreciation that we were dealing with some other issues in the House.

The floor is yours, sir.

[Yves Côté]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to begin by sincerely thanking the committee for inviting me to testify this afternoon on the issue of a Veterans Ombudsman. I have followed your work with great interest and I would like to commend you for your collective determination to develop the best possible Ombudsman model for Canada's veterans. This is an incredibly important initiative for our veterans who have given so much of themselves in service to Canada.

I think all Canadians would agree that we owe our veterans—at the minimum—fair, equitable and compassionate consideration when they come forward for help. And, clearly, a Veterans Ombudsman will greatly help to ensure this.

Joining me today is Mary McFadyen, our General Counsel and acting Director General of Operations. Of course, I am referring to the lady seated to my left.

At this point, Mr. Chair, and with the committee's indulgence, I would like to skip over some of the detail regarding my current role and mandates—which can be found in paragraphs 6 to 19 in your copies of my speaking notes—and focus on the issue at hand; that is, the creation of a veterans ombudsman. This begins at paragraph 20 in the document we have distributed to you.

Our own office has been an effective catalyst for positive, substantial, and long-lasting change for Canada's men and women in uniform. This is not to suggest, however, that everything is perfect. Indeed, I have been working with the Minister of National Defence on some important changes.

Most notably, we have been focused on securing a legislated mandate for our office. Our key objective is to confirm our mandate in a more secure and permanent manner, thereby protecting the independence and ensuring the continuity of our office. This, of course, takes me to the issue at hand today: what type of mandate the veterans ombudsman should have.

The veterans ombudsman must be effective; our veterans deserve no less. In order to be effective, the veterans ombudsman must be given all the tools and the resources required to produce concrete results for their constituents. To me, this means that the veterans ombudsman model should, just as our own office should, have a robust legislated mandate.

Such a legislated mandate should provide, at a minimum—and I stress “at a minimum”—for the following: security of tenure for the incumbent; complete independence from the department and agencies over which the veterans ombudsman would have jurisdiction; full ability to decide what complaint or issue to investigate; full ability to determine how any complaint will be investigated and when a file will be closed; clear and powerful investigative tools, including the power to order the timely production of all relevant files and information and the power to compel witnesses to appear before him or her; clear provisions to ensure the confidentiality of complaints handling and of the investigation process; penalties for failure to assist and cooperate, and penalties to prevent any type of retaliation; full ability to make findings and reports public without having to obtain any type of prior authorization; full authority to select and direct the staff; and finally, access to independent legal advice.

Quite clearly, Mr. Chairman, the legislation would contain many other provisions typically found in an ombudsman's mandate. I just wanted to highlight here today some of the key characteristics that should exist.

Let me now turn to an issue that has been of some interest for several members of this committee—to whom should the ombudsman report?

My own personal view is that there is merit in having a specialized type of ombudsman like ours and like a Veterans Ombudsman reporting to the relevant minister. This is based on my experience—now with two Ministers of National Defence, namely, Mr. Graham and the current Minister, Mr. O'Connor. In a large measure, my view is based on pragmatic considerations. I found that my direct, personal and, at times, informal contact with the minister personally and with key members of his office has allowed me to intervene on a number of issues and to cause issues to be resolved quickly and decisively.

In our business, or in the ombudsman's world, these are important considerations. And, clearly, our constituents have benefited from this. I would be concerned about establishing a more distant relationship with the sole minister who has the responsibility, the authority—and accountability—for implementing my recommendations.

Mr.Chairman, let me illustrate this with a concrete and recent example. Earlier this month, namely on November 1^st, I released our report on the first combat engineer regiment veterans who deployed to Kuwait in 1991. The day before the publication of the report, I met with the minister and discussed our recommendations with him.

The day after the publication, the minister rose in the House and said that he had ordered the department and the Canadian Forces to implement all of our recommendations. Having spoken to the main complainant on this, I can tell you he was much heartened to hear that the minister had reacted so quickly and so decisively to our recommendations.

There is another very important consideration that I'd like to bring to bear on this issue. Effective steps can be taken in legislation to ensure that the mandate and status of a specialized ombudsman who reports to a minister is protected in a very effective way from what could be referred to as undue ministerial interference. I have already mentioned some of these characteristics, and I would refer you to paragraph 23 of my remarks.

I would also like to reiterate a couple of those here. The ombudsman should have the full and unrestrained freedom to make public whatever report or views he or she sees fit to publish and in whatever form he or she thinks advisable. The ombudsman should have the ability to deal with any complaint in the way that he or she deems appropriate. Finally, the ombudsman should have the full ability to launch any investigation on his or her own motion--that is, without necessarily having to wait for complaints to be filed with his or her office.

In addition to these provisions, legislation should make it absolutely clear, for example, that the minister could not issue any directions to the ombudsman unless they were issued in writing and unless they were made public. This, in my view, clarifies the lines. Though the ombudsman submits his or her reports and recommendations to the minister, the ombudsman maintains a healthy distance from ministerial power and interference. I think the approach that I am proposing, certainly based on my own personal experience, combines the virtue of swift efficiency with that of solid independence.

That being said, Mr. Chairman, there is no question that Parliament and parliamentary committees, such as this committee, of course, have an absolutely fundamental role to play in matters of this sort. The minister, as we all know here, is accountable to Parliament and can be called to appear before any committee.

Speaking from my own experience, my annual reports are tabled in Parliament. Any special report that I issue is widely distributed to parliamentarians and certainly to all members of relevant committees. In addition, I am always, as I'm sure any veteran ombudsman would be, available and pleased to appear before any parliamentary committee to discuss any of our activities or reports or to provide any information any committee may be interested in obtaining.

On a closing note, Mr. Chairman, I would say that a new veterans ombudsman will have a tremendously important—and challenging—road ahead. Given the significant size of the veterans' constituency, I would expect the new veterans ombudsman to receive a large number of cases and complaints in very short order.

It will be, of course, essential that the veterans ombudsman be given the full resources they will require to set the office up, and then to operate on an on-going basis: the best structure and the strongest possible mandate will not be sufficient if the appropriate level of resources to deliver on it are not made available.

Also, and this is a point that should not be overlooked, the new veterans ombudsman must be given a reasonable period of time to set up the office, recruit and train the staff, create the procedures, etc. This is not a small detail.

In short, if they are to succeed and truly serve Canada's veterans in an effective manner, the veterans ombudsman will require a clear and robust legislated mandate, a strong team, an appropriate budget and the appropriate amount of time required to establish a strong office.

At this time, Me McFadyen and I stand ready to provide any assistance that we can do this committee.

At this time, we stand ready to provide any assistance we can to this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

I take it you have finished your presentation. You still have about nine minutes left, if you want. You are done? Fair enough.

I have a little question here. I am referring to your colleague. Please clarify the pronunciation of your last name.

[Mary McFadyen, Acting General Counsel, National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman]

My name is McFadyen. That is the correct pronunciation. Is usually gets shortened to McFadden, but it is actually McFadyen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

So that is the correct spelling. That is fascinating, very interesting.

All right. Over to Mr. St. Denis for the Liberals, for seven minutes.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Côté and Ms. McFadyen, for being here.

We've had a very interesting number of meetings on the issue of an ombudsman for our veterans and your input is greatly appreciated.

One of the questions I would have asked, I think, you've answered by not mentioning it. At no time did you say that such a veterans ombudsman would be part of your office and answer to you. I gather you're satisfied that such an ombudsman position would be totally separate from your own office and operate exclusively for veterans. I think that's a happy opinion, on my part--

[Yves Côté]

Mr. Chair, that would be my view on the topic.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Okay, thank you for that.

A number of us were able to go to the Ste. Anne's veterans hospital in Montreal earlier this week, and we were very impressed with the team of Rachel Corneille Gravel, the executive director. We met with Mr. Bérubé, who is the ombudsman for that hospital. Now, that's a very precise assignment for an ombudsman--the residents of a hospital and their families, and so on--but it still gave us insights into what the role might be. Many of the points you covered are certainly elements that would apply to Mr. Bérubé's position at Ste. Anne's, or really to any ombudsman.

We can get things like tenure and budgets and so on from the template. So I appreciate that you've delved into some of the more complicated areas, which, for example, would be the reporting. Your position is not a legislated position. It was set up by the minister or the department. Do you feel that would be adequate as well for a veterans ombudsman?

[Yves Côté]

Mr. Chairman, I think my views are in a way pretty clear from the statement I shared with you today. My own sense is that, by far, the preferred approach would be a legislated mandate for the veterans ombudsman, and as I said in my remarks, what I just said should also apply to my own office.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

As for the reporting, I know you'll get different points of view among members of this committee, but you've made it fairly clear that while reporting to the minister, you're not directed by the minister and your reports to the minister are public and they are tabled in the House of Commons on a periodic basis.

I understand your argument that by reporting to a minister you, or the people you serve, could have a more timely response, as opposed to waiting for a committee or for the House of Commons, through a committee, to act. I wonder if you could maybe speak a bit more about the timeliness of your ability now in answering to the minister or in reporting to a minister...that this is a better way to serve the constituency that you serve.

[Yves Côté]

Indeed, Mr. Chairman, as I said in my opening remarks, this is based on my own experience and on what I refer to as pragmatic reasons. When you are in the ombudsman business, your role is to make a real difference for the people you serve. Actual results and delivering results in a timely way are two very important considerations.

My own experience with the two ministers I've served under or with has been that the fact that you report to them can be very useful. For example, from time to time I have picked up the phone and called a minister to say that we have this issue that is burning; that I think they, as minister, should be aware of it; and that I think they should take this or that step to resolve it. I can say again that, based on what I have done and what I have lived over the last year and a half almost, this has been very productive.

There are at least two other points that I'd like to make. When legislation is developed for the veterans ombudsman, you can have very strong clauses in the legislation that say, for example, that the only way the minister can direct the veterans ombudsman will be by way of written directions, and you can provide for the publication of such written directions. Right then and there, you guarantee that before any minister issues any type of direction to an ombudsman, he or she will think very carefully before doing so. I think that is something that is easily doable in any kind of legislation that you develop.

Also, as the member suggested, Mr. Chair, there's the fact that a minister is always available and is always reachable. Wherever they happen to be, you can reach them. You can reach the chief of staff and you can ask them to look into an issue and get back to you. In a way, that also works to ensure better and more timely results for the people we serve.

Lastly, that doesn't mean a committee like yours would be taken out of the equation, so to speak. For example, if the new veterans ombudsman runs into problems with the Department of Veterans Affairs on issues like the budget—for example, he had this great mandate, but he was only given half the resources he needed—I'm sure the ombudsman could ask to be heard by you, in order to share with you the fact that he has this fundamental issue that he doesn't seem to be able to move. Quite clearly, I would assume this committee would be interested in hearing about that, and that the committee would then take steps.

All of this together suggests to me that the preferred option, based again on my experience and my own view, would be what I have said.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Chair, in my last few moments, further to that, I'd like to thank the witness.

In paragraph 37 you mention the happy experience with 1 Combat Engineer Regiment veterans from Kuwait, and you say the minister responded quickly. What happens if, in your mind, an equally important situation is brought to the minister of the day and you feel it is not dealt with? What is your recourse? Do you have a press conference? Do you contact the chair of the committee or the Chief of Defence Staff? How do you handle it? Or does it have to wait for the report to Parliament at the end of the year?

[Yves Côté]

No. The big reports that we issue are what we call the systemic reports. They are systemic investigations into topics like recruiting or the deployment of 1 CER to Kuwait. These are published throughout the year at various intervals. For example, we had one in July on recruiting and one at the beginning of November on 1 CER.

To go back to the member's question, if I, as ombudsman, felt the minister of the day was not responding in a way that I thought was appropriate to the recommendations that I made, there are a number of things I could do. One could be to go to the Standing Committee on National Defence, draw their attention to it, and say they might be interested in hearing from me about it. I could also go to the press to some extent and make the point that we're not getting the kind of response we think we should be getting.

In the end, there is a saying in the ombudsmen's world. It's a bit flippant, but it says that the only power we have is the power to shame, to go public and say there is no action being taken on an issue that we think is very important. I know enough of my world—that is, national defence—and I think I know enough of the veterans affairs world that if an ombudsman for the veterans affairs department came out and said something like I just suggested, the press would be interested, and I presume this committee would be interested.

So those are ways of getting results.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

We'll now move on to Monsieur Perron.

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

Good day, ladies and gentlemen.

You clearly stated that you would prefer to report to the minister. This is your point of view, but I do not necessarily share it. This is how things work in democracy.

[Yves Côté]

Quite so.

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

The Quebec citizen's protector, who is like an ombudsman, and the ombudsman of Ontario, Manitoba, British Columbia and New Brunswick report to the Legislative Assembly. I have some difficulty in understanding why you are out of step with them.

I would also like to ask you the following question. If I understand correctly, the National Defence ombudsman and the veterans ombudsman would have an equal workload. In that case, what would be your idea of an appropriate budget: $10 million, $25 million, $75 million? To give us an idea, you could tell us what kind of operating budget you have.

[Yves Côté]

Mr. Chairman, there were two or three questions, and I will answer them in the order that they were put to me.

The member said that we would be practically alone in not following the same procedure. Of course, in a military environment, this kind of thing may raise concerns. In any case, I think that there are two or three good reasons for it. First, our mandate, unlike that of provincial ombudsman, is limited. We deal with complaints that have to do with the interaction between members or former members of the Canadian armed forces and the Department of National Defence. We know that Ontario's ombudsman, Mr. André Marin, and Quebec's protector of citizens, for instance, deal with issues that cover all departments.

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

But they are limited to military matters.

[Yves Côté]

With all due respect, I must say that I do not really agree with you. In Quebec, for instance, the ombudsman covers 23 departments, commissions, administrative tribunals and so forth. Given the breath of his mandate, the ombudsman should naturally report to the National Assembly in Quebec or the Legislative Assembly in Ontario.

Moreover, as we all know, there are federal parliamentary agents, as for example the Information Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner, the Chief Electoral Officers and the Auditor General. Given these people's mandates cover the government as a whole, it seems natural to me that they should report to a parliamentary committee or to Parliament.

As the member said, this is nonetheless an issue about which reasonable people can reasonably draw different conclusions. I am speaking from my own point of view, based on my experience and on what has worked in this environment.

With regard to the workload, I can say that in our office, on an average year, we receive about 1,400 or 1,600 complaints. They come from the 60,000 members of the regular forces, the 30,000 members of the reserves and from families.

In certain news clippings that I read, it was mentioned that about 700,000 veterans were currently negotiating with the Department of Veterans Affairs. This is a much larger base. This would lead us to believe that the number of complaints will be probably larger than ours. We must also keep in mind that veterans who can no longer work and who have financial problems probably have more opportunities to deal with their ombudsman than to members of the regular armed forces who are deployed or who are hard at work.

With regard to the budget allocated to our office, it amounts to $6.5 million. This amount was granted to us for the past fiscal year. We have spent $5.3 million of that amount. This covers a staff of about 50 persons.

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

Let me tell you about a rather peculiar case.

We all remember the report handed in by Mr. André Marin in 2003 that dealt with the SISIP. If I remember correctly, you even came back to this issue in another report. It seems to me that all of this led nowhere. Since 2003, the issue has been dead.

Are you bound by the minister? Why did this famous report, which had practically been tabled on the sly, go the way of file no. 13? You really have to be involved in veterans' issues before getting involved in this.

[Yves Côté]

Mr. Chairman, I clearly see why the question was asked. I understand that from the outside, there is an impression—and a well-founded one in a certain sense—that there is not much happening. As a matter of fact, it is not so.

You remember that last November, I wrote a letter to Minister Graham that I subsequently published. In this letter, I strongly advised him to get things moving. In the following month of May, we were informed by the Department of National Defence that the cost of implementing the recommendations in the report was much higher than what we had been told during the investigation.

I was astounded by the size of the figures. I then requested that these figures which came from the insurance company that deals with SISIP, be audited by independent actuaries who could tell us whether the arithmetic is correct or if there are mistakes. Four or five weeks ago, it was confirmed that the bill would amount to much more than what we had envisaged at the time.

In this respect, I intend to write to the Minister of National Defence in the beginning of calendar year 2007. In this letter, which will also be published, as was the one of November 2005, I will tell the minister what steps should be taken, in my opinion, in order to deal with this situation and solve the problem in a way that is fair to all the stakeholders.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

I know that today, we must focus on the ombudsman issue, but I think that we should take this opportunity to schedule a meeting with Mr. Côté in the near future to discuss other problems. I have quite a few questions about veterans' issues.