Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2006

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

We would hope that would carry on for the ombudsman we're looking to set up.

We've heard a number of times that part of the problem is about the record keeping. How does an ombudsman work when the records aren't as good as they should have been, especially when we go back in time for the veterans?

We've heard many cases where things weren't reported because it wasn't the way things were done back then. There was a different feeling from people who were heard and they didn't necessarily want to report something they felt was minor, but which could be major later on. How do you work when there's a lack of records?

[Yves Côté]

I think in a way there is more to that question than meets the ear or meets the eye. In addition to the point you've raised, there's also the point that if you don't have a robust legislated mandate it may take an awful lot of time before you get the information as an ombudsman. This is something we have lived as DND ombudsman or CF ombudsman, because we don't have a legislated mandate.

On asking for documents, it happened in a case that was referred to us by the Chief of Defence Staff. He referred that to the then-ombudsman and said please look into this. A week later we sent a letter saying give us everything you have on that. There were pieces of the documentation required that took one year to come to us. Point number one: you absolutely need a legislated mandate that clearly says you have the right to have access to anything you think is relevant.

The first point you raised is on the issue of missing documentation. I think in the package we just distributed you may have a copy of the report we issued at the beginning of November for the deployment of 1 CER in Kuwait. And yes indeed, going back 15 years we found in a number of instances, when we interviewed members of 1 CER, that they were telling us that there were pieces of medical reports that were somehow missing from their files. They had been assured it would be there and it was not there.

This is not right, obviously, and this should not happen. When you're stuck with it and you find that information is not there that should be there, you push the department, the CF in our case, to re-create it in the best way possible and to afford the member who is in this difficult situation all the help and assistance he or she may need with a view to re-creating, after the fact, the kinds of things he or she may require in order to, for example, in Veterans Affairs, pursue a claim for a pension. But that's not easy.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

That wouldn't be easy 15 years ago, let alone to go back 60 years ago. It's going to take that many more resources, that many more challenges. Would I be fair in saying it's going to take that much more experience as a whole team? You work with 50 people who have to re-create something from 15 years ago, and what's it going to take? How accurate can we be, or is it going to be gut feeling in the end when we try to re-create what happened in 1945?

[Yves Côté]

It's very difficult to guess the amount of resources you may need. My main point would be that the ombudsman should have the tools and the necessary equipment, if you will, to get the department to get moving to assist, in this case the veteran, to re-create and remake those documents that are missing. I don't pretend to be a specialist in the area, but I know the legislation for Veterans Affairs is quite clear that whenever there is a doubt the benefit of the doubt should be given to the veteran. It seems to me in some cases what you can do is file an affidavit, a sworn declaration that this is what happened. If there was no contrary evidence, then the benefit of the doubt presumably calls for the veteran to be believed on the basis of the sworn declaration he has filed with the tribunal, for example.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Now we'll go to Monsieur Gaudet.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Would you explain what your job consists of? Up to now I have not really understood what your mandate is. You said that your office tries to settle complaints in an informal way. What is an informal complaint?

[Yves Côté]

Mr. Chairman, we solve problems or complaints in an informal way. We are not the only ones to do this, I think that all ombudsmen and all citizen's protectors work in the same way. What I mean is that we emphasize efficiency in resolving issues.

For instance, someone might have a certain type of problem and decide to write a formal letter to someone, somewhere, asking him to look into the situation and give an answer in writing. Or this person might decide to make a telephone call for example, to the commander of a squadron or a military base to tell him that a certain soldier is having such and such a problem and ask him for a way to solve it. This is what we mean by "informal". It is our ability to intervene—and this is really important for an ombudsman and for those who work with him or her—at any level of the organization. This is our current situation. We can speak to General Hillier's office, the minister's office or the office of a commander of a base at Bagotville or anywhere else.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I agree with you. You are able to speak to them, but they do not give you what you want. They do not give the information you want nor the letters, nothing. That is what you told my colleague earlier on. Most often, you are obliged to make the request several times because you are connected to a minister. If you reported to the House of Commons, perhaps it would be quicker.

[Yves Côté]

Mr. Chairman, if I said that in general we do not have access to documents, I did not express myself well. What I wanted to say, is that we have had cases such as the one entrusted to us by the Chief of Defence Staff where it took a long time to get all the documents.

Another aspect I would like to emphasize is that, in the case of informal inquiries, the degree of cooperation between our office and, for example, the officers of the armed forces or the Minister of Defence is very good.

As an example, I would mention the inquiry we are currently carrying out on the state of health of reservists and on the way in which they are treated when they come back from a deployment. I met with the investigators quite recently once again, and they tell me that the degree of cooperation, at every level of the chain of command in all of the bases they visited, is really very good. Therefore, yes, there are areas in which things are not going so well and there are others where things are going very well.

But there is one argument I wish to make and which is, in my opinion, extremely important. What could make a difference as far as we are concerned, is not necessarily that we report to a parliamentary committee, to Parliament or to a minister, but rather that we have a legislative mandate. If we had a legislative mandate that stipulated that the ombudsman could issue notices to appear, and orders for delivery of documents, the department would be obliged to comply with our requests within the time prescribed by the ombudsman, and we would receive the documents much more quickly.

I think we must be very careful to separate what I have just said from the issue of ultimate responsibility, that is to say to whom I report or not, because once again, with a strong legislative mandate, all of these obstacles can be overcome without any difficulty.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I do not know if there is a Chinese, Canadian or some other kind of proverb that says: "You do not bite the hand that feeds you". It is a proverb that should be paid attention to normally, particularly in politics. We do not bite the hand that feeds us because if we do, normally, we are out of a job. That is my fear.

That the ombudsman should be appointed for a six-year term by the House of Commons—I would agree on that—and that he should report to the House of Commons.

If I understood Mr. Marin, the ombudsman for Ontario, correctly the other day, he manages a budget of $6.9 million. He settled 25,000 complaints a year and he personally carries five or six formal investigations per year.

Earlier on, you said that you spent $5.3 million last year. It is not the fact that you spent the money that bothers me, but I want to know how you spent it. I heard that many cases were settled. Take note that there are several veterans who are not happy with the way in which things are being done. Some are happy, but some are not.

[Yves Côté]

Mr. Chairman, that is a question which has many aspects. I would remind you that our annual report—I think we distributed copies of it earlier today—gives you an idea of the kind of complaints that have been resolved and of their number. There is a table that indicates the kinds of issues we dealt with. I'm very proud of the work that the office accomplishes and of our capacity to deal with situations quickly and in the interest of the people we serve.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Your office, with its $5.3 million budget, deals only with veterans affairs. If I take Mr. Marin as an example once again, he receives complaints from citizens of the entire province of Ontario, not only complaints from veterans, complaints from anyone. That is why I am saying to you that if you had a mandate, it seems to me that it would be much easier for you, if you had to report to the House of Commons. That is my opinion.

You have the right to your own, and I respect that.

[Yves Côté]

Mr. Chairman, I obviously also respect the member's opinion. That is very clear.

I should also mentioned quickly that I am appointed for a five-year mandate in what is referred to as "during good behaviour“. What that means is that if the government or the minister wanted to remove me or fire me, it might be quite difficulty doing so because the expression “to hold office during good behaviour, " provides a very solid protection. I say that in response to the comment according to which we always fear biting the hand that feeds us.

Furthermore, one has to consider the kind of person appointed to the position of ombudsman. This person must have courage, convictions, and must be prepared to issue recommendations or take public positions that are sometimes unpopular or objectionable, because that is his or her responsibility under the circumstances.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Thank you, gentlemen.

We will now go on to Mr. Sweet, who sadly couldn't split his time before, for five minutes.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

If I have any time left, I will share with Colin. I'll try to be a little bit more concise.

Thank you very much for some very specific information.

Of the 1,400 complaints that you get, how many of those would be major cases that would require substantial investigation?

[Yves Côté]

In a moment I will ask Madame McFadyen if she has an answer to that, because I don't know that I necessarily have the exact answer to this.

I would like to emphasize two things. One is the fact that on the one hand, one of the things that we do is systemic investigations, and they as a rule will eat up a large amount of resources. For example, in the reservist investigation that we have currently going on, we will have four and a half people, four FTEs and a half-time, on this for a period of probably seven months, in addition to whatever legal advice they may require, and in addition to my own time. So the systemic investigations are very consuming in terms of resources, but they also are very important, because often they will cost the system as a whole.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

That's a good point. How many of those systemic investigations would you do per year?

[Yves Côté]

In this office, in and out, we've probably been doing three systemics a year. Certainly since I came on board that has been my objective. We're going to be issuing a couple of reports in the next few months. So three to four a year would be what we do, and of course Veterans Affairs would do something different.

Mary, would you have that?

[Mary McFadyen]

No.

I think since the office started I'd say in total there have been 25 to 30 systemic reports released. Since 1999, when the office started receiving complaints, we've received 12,000. Certainly most of the complaints we receive deal with an individual with individual problems. Certainly after receiving complaints we see that there are trends, so we realize that maybe there's a bigger issue that needs to be investigated. Since we've been operating, we've released about 30 systemic reports.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Are the investigators that you have and the skills that are acquired of a forensic calibre?

[Yves Côté]

Yes. We have a mixed bag, if I may use that expression, of abilities and competencies in the office. For example, we have somebody who used to be a university ombudsman. We have a couple of people who used to be police investigators. We have somebody who used to work for CSIS. We also have a number of investigators who used to be members of the military. So they bring to the table a good understanding of the universe and the way in which we operate. We have hired some young investigators with masters degrees in conflict resolution. We try to go in different directions to make sure that when we constitute a team that will look at the systemic issue, we can have on the team people who have different backgrounds so that the work can be as rich as possible.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

You said earlier that the minister makes you aware of some issues. I just want to dig a bit at that. If the minister makes you aware of an issue, is your office under any obligation to proceed with that issue?

[Yves Côté]

Technically speaking, under the directives as they read now, if the minister said to me, “I want you to investigate this”, I think the technical answer would have to be, “Okay, I'll do it”. At the same time, it seems to me that if this were an issue that I thought for some reason was not worthy of a full investigation, I would go back to the minister and ask him or her whether they had considered this, that, or the other thing, and also the alternative cost of it. I might suggest that if we do this, then we won't have the time or the resources to do what in my book, perhaps, is more important than that.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

I asked you that question specifically because you brought up some new information that we hadn't heard before, and I wanted to really clarify if there was direction or encouragement. If there's an obligation, that's direction.