Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2006

[Mary McFadyen]

Because we're an office of last resort, we let the internal processes of the department try to resolve the problem themselves. That's supposed to be what happens.

I don't have in our annual report how many people we said no to. I have 47 that we've declined, but I don't have the specific reasons. We have some 218 that we received that were outside the mandate.

But certainly if someone complains, because we're an office of last resort it is important that we take the file and look at it. And certainly when we get a complaint and we look and the person has explained what they think is wrong, sometimes if someone just sits down and explains to them why a decision was reached, that is enough to satisfy them.

Even though the decision is still against them, at least someone has taken the time to sit down and explain why a decision has been made. So we still do something, try to inform people. And even when they come and it ends up that there's nothing really we can do, at least we've helped them in some way.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

And where you get more than one, where there's a group that has an issue that makes sense, that's where you make your recommendation as far as policy change by the government is concerned, to accommodate?

[Yves Côté]

Indeed, and I think you were alluding to a point that I covered a moment ago about how important it is for the Office of the Ombudsman to remain impartial.

So you have to look at those matters, and if your own investigation suggests there is nothing there, there is no case, so to speak, you have to be able to tell the complainant exactly that: We think that the policy was fair and that it was fairly applied to you, and for that reason we will not intervene on your behalf.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Mr. Sweet, for a minute or so.

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

We're getting to where I wanted to go, so it was good that you had the follow-up question.

In the case of a file where you have to sit down with someone, walk them through it so they understand the answer, is that considered a complaint in this 1,400 number?

[Yves Côté]

Yes, indeed, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Now we're over to Mr. Stoffer of the NDP, for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As far as you know, Veterans Affairs handles RCMP files now, so should the ombudsman be an ombudsman for RCMP retired members as well?

[Yves Côté]

Mr. Chairman, my view on this is that the ombudsman for Veterans Affairs should have jurisdiction over people or issues that come to bear because people are not happy with the manner in which a department has served them. So to the extent that RCMP members would make an application for a pension or benefits, for example, and they were dissatisfied with the responses they were getting, it would seem to me that, yes, the ombudsman should have jurisdiction to handle those complaints.

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

Very good. Thank you.

Sir, your predecessor, Mr. Marin, was here and he talked about VRAB, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. He basically said that if the ombudsman does not have oversight of VRAB, there's no sense in even putting an ombudsman in. Would you agree with that statement?

[Yves Côté]

Mr. Chairman, my position would be that any ombudsman that was created for VRAB should have a legislated mandate that applies to the VRAB tribunal--by all means, absolutely.

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

Mr. Chairman, there's an old expression that says that in a democratic society, if you have a police force, then who polices the police? So you always have to determine who's looking at who.

On page 4 of your book here...and this is where I get a bit concerned, because I'm always of the belief that the ombudsman--watchdog, oversight--is an independent analysis of concerns within a department, including its minister. But I've done enough collective bargaining agreements in my life to know that the word “shall” is something you want in a collective agreement when you want the company to do something, but it's not something you want in when the company wants you to do something.

It says here “the ombudsman shall investigate any matter referred to the ombudsman by written direction of the minister”. So if the minister writes you a note and says “I want you to investigate this”, you have no choice but to investigate it. Is that right?

[Yves Côté]

That's right.

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

You see, I have a problem with that. I think the ombudsman should determine independently of the minister or of anyone else what files, what programs, what direction.... That person should determine that.

Would you agree with that statement or not?

[Yves Côté]

Mr. Chairman, I would simply say what I said in my written remarks, which is that the ombudsman should have the complete ability to determine how any complaints, files, or issues should be investigated. What would flow from that is that if the minister directed him to do an investigation, the ombudsman should have the ability to say no, unless--and this goes back to what I said--the minister issues a direction, in writing, which is made public, that says I want you to investigate this. That would be the one caveat.

My experience has been that before a minister goes to the length of issuing a written direction to his or her ombudsman to do something, it would presumably be something serious and important, and it may be good for the ombudsman to look into it. My experience has also been that most ministers, most of the time, are by and large reasonable people. If you said, “Well, look, Minister, I don't think this makes sense, because if you force me to do this, I will spend an awful lot of resources that won't be available for this or that”, usually a minister would be sensitive to that and say, “Okay, maybe you're right. Maybe we will split it, or maybe we will do something else.”

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

See, you are right at the crux of the problem. I'm thankful the previous two ministers have not done this, but the fact is that it could happen. If a minister wanted to play games and tie your department up on something you think is frivolous, it doesn't matter. He or she wants you to do this and tie you up so that other issues of relevance or political importance could be delayed. That's the part that makes me nervous. In my view, I don't think a minister should have the right to tell you what to do.

If we're applying for an ombudsman position for Veterans Affairs, that person should have complete independence of the minister. He should be completely separate. That's my own personal view. It makes me nervous to know that at any time a minister could write you a letter, make it public--it doesn't matter--and say you have to do something. You have no choice but to do it. I find that is rather unfortunate.

[Yves Côté]

But there is also the point that the ombudsman could certainly decide how they're going to investigate. They could say, “Okay, we've reached a point where you're directing me to do this. I'll do it in the way I see fit in the circumstances.” Maybe I'd come back with something that was very slim, and say, “You asked me to investigate. I did my investigation. There is my report. End of the matter.”

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

I hear you.

[Yves Côté]

So not all is lost, so to speak.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Now, the only person who has indicated they want to speak and who hasn't had a chance yet is Monsieur Perron.

I would ask that Monsieur Perron be our last questioner today.

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

It's three minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Oh, no. That's fine.

I'm just laying out things for the committee. Originally, we were supposed to go to five o'clock, but it went over because of the stuff in the House.

I wonder if Monsieur Perron can be our last questioner today. After that, I have some announcements about next week.

Monsieur Perron.

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

You mentioned that post-traumatic stress syndrome was practically a taboo subject in the army.

Do I sum up accurately what you said?