Yes.
Evidence of meeting #17 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 report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #17 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 report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
When you notify the minister of an investigation, have you ever been turned back by any minister?
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
Not in your past either. Okay.
The recommendations that you so far have given to ministers, have you felt they've been respected, and have you seen evidence of implementation on those recommendations?
4:50 p.m.
Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman
We have in a number of respects. Perhaps the key file on this would be post-traumatic syndrome.
That was, of course, before my time and was an issue that for the longest time, in a way, had been ignored by the chain of command. It was looked at as being something you could deal with by saying, “Well, just roll up your sleeves and stop thinking about your own problems and get on with life”. Of course, Mr. Marin issued that report, which I think in many respects caused the department and the CF to review fundamentally how they deal with this. That's one example, and perhaps one of the biggest examples, but it goes to the case of Mr. Wenzel. Every single recommendation that I made there was implemented.
As you heard me say at the outset, on the 1 CER report that we issued three weeks ago now, the minister has ordered the departments in CF to implement every single recommendation. Certainly from what I know of my time in the job, this has been very positive and very constructive.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Anders
No, we're 38 seconds over. Sorry, guys. That's the way it's working out. I didn't set the rules.
Now to Mr. Cuzner. Five minutes.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Thank you very much.
I think the committee, through many of the witnesses, has been trying to determine whether it is best to report to the minister, or whether it is best to report through committee to Parliament. What I'm getting from your testimony here is that probably there are other mechanisms, that there's probably a hybrid in there where there's benefit to both.
You mentioned the fact that sometimes expedience isn't on the side of reporting to Parliament through committee because of pulling the committee together. Could you hang a little bit more meat on how that would work, together with the reporting? Is it to the responsible minister and committee? Could you identify, other than the timeliness thing--because I think that could be something we could probably address in the case of an emergency or whatever--what other drawbacks there would be in reporting to Parliament through the committee?
4:55 p.m.
Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman
Other drawbacks, Mr. Chairman? I wouldn't want to minimize the points I made about efficiency and timeliness, because for me that's very important. You say that there are, perhaps, mechanisms to address this, and that may be right. There's no doubt that things could be done. I am speaking, as I said, on the basis of pragmatic considerations and based on my own experience, which admittedly, of course, is a limited amount of experience.
Also, in answer to a previous question, I made the point that having an agent of Parliament, having somebody who has a mandate that is broad, reporting to Parliament, makes a good deal of sense because of the breadth, if you will, of the mandate. When you deal with a mandate that's narrow, I think it's preferable to go to the person who ultimately has the ability to direct his department or the CF to do things. The minister under the National Defence Act has, I think, management and direction of the department and the CF, so he is in charge. Of course, as I mentioned also, he's accountable to Parliament through question period or committee work or whatever, so I think it's not only pragmatic in a way, but in theory I think it makes for a better model.
For example, if other ombudsmen-like offices were to be created in the federal bureaucracy, then the risk would be that you would have a multiplicity of those reporting to Parliament, even though they had narrow mandates. I'm not sure that in terms of good governance that would be the right approach. Of course the committee could see fit to having experts advise them in terms of what the theory and the principles would be, and that's not an area I'm highly qualified in.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Brent St. Denis Liberal Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Gilles has referred many times to the term “watchdog”, or a guard....
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Brent St. Denis Liberal Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Un chien de garde.
Is that a true sense? Do you see yourself as a watchdog, a guard dog, on behalf of the constituency you serve? Is that your primary...the first ones to whom you serve?
4:55 p.m.
Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman
I would perhaps use a couple of different analogies. On the one hand, I would see the office as a mechanism or voice for those people who have little or no voice, given where they are in life or their status. On the other hand, I would see ourselves—and I think it's a very important role—as the canary in the mine, as I think they say in English, where we pick up things.
Just before I came here today, Mr. Chairman, I met with all the base and wing commanders and their chief warrant officers for an hour and a half. We discussed a number of issues with them in a very open way, and they raised a number of issues with me where they said these things should be investigated or looked into by me. That's one way. So you pick up various bits of information from here and there, sometimes real issues, and then you make a report, you sit down with the minister, you sit down with the Chief of the Defence Staff, and you say these are some of the things I have picked up, and I think you should be looking into them. And if they don't respond the way you think they should, then you either launch an investigation or you issue a report. That's the analogy I would use.
The last point I would make, Mr. Chairman, is how important it is for an ombudsman to always maintain independence and impartiality. If you are to be credible to the people you serve--that is, to your constituents, but also to the organization with which you interface--you have to approach things in a way that is completely impartial, so that when there is a real issue you move it forward, and when a complaint is laid with you and you don't think the complainant has been unfairly treated, you are able to say that to them.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Brent St. Denis Liberal Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
I just want to thank the ombudsman for that, and Gilles for bringing that term up, because we always assume you are receiving complaints, whereas your just going around and seeing your community also brings forward issues.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Anders
No problem.
Okay, we're a minute and twenty seconds over the five minutes already.
I'm sorry, Mr. Perron, you are coming up, but not just yet. I apologize.
Now, over to Mr. Mayes for five minutes.
November 22nd, 2006 / 5 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Mayes Conservative Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Côté, I'm a member of Parliament and sometimes I feel like an ombudsman, because there are people who come through our constituency door and have issues with government.
5 p.m.
Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman
So we should have coffee and exchange our own experiences, right?
5 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Mayes Conservative Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
I've found in the little experience I've had as a member of Parliament that about 80% of them just don't like the word “no”. There is a policy in place and they don't like to hear it, so they come into the office and try to get me to take up their cause. Twenty percent have fallen in the cracks or have an issue, or the policy doesn't make sense and it needs to be addressed.
I have a little bit of a follow-up to what Mr. Sweet had to say about the numbers here. When you review these 1,400 complaints, how often do you say no, there's a policy here and this is the policy? You said three or four times that you make recommendations as far as changing policy is concerned because it makes sense, but to how many people would you say “This is the policy and I can't help you”?
5 p.m.
Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman
I'll ask Madame McFadyen to answer that in a moment.
The one thing I would say is that because we are an office of last resort, just like any ombudsman I know, we will turn to complainants or contacts in a number of cases and say they could perhaps file a grievance, or, in the case of Veterans Affairs, they could file an appeal, if someone has not exhausted the existing mechanisms available to them. That's an important point. So out of the 1,400 complaints we get, a large number of those would simply be pushed back to existing mechanisms, with our telling them that if they're not happy with how these go, then they can come back to us.
In terms of the percentage of cases we dismiss because there is no foundation to them, we could certainly try to provide the committee with information on that—unless you have it, Mary?
