Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 27th, 2006

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

Thank you, gentlemen.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you again for coming out.

I'm finding it interesting, because the question was asked, do you want an ombudsman? It's been clear from this government from the start that that's why we're having these discussions. It's been a little frustrating, I guess, and I'm glad to get some clarification. And I do not know that our government put a gag order on anyone.

[Larry Gollner]

It was the previous government.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Okay, then I guess that's clear. I'm just saying that's why this committee's in gear. We came on here and one of the things that was said is we aren't going to go back. We want to move ahead to get this in place.

If we don't have elections called, and that's not up to the ones on this side, then we can move ahead. Obviously, when they're called, things get stopped. The timeline politically here is a lot slower than most of us would like to have.

I'm just wondering how we get agreement with all 53 associations.

[Tom Hoppe]

I think from what I've read and from what I see on this committee, there's agreement that we need an ombudsman. So how we move forward on that.... I'd like to see this move forward too.

To go to your comment, we have to look where we've been in order to move forward, and that's why we present some of the past to get us ahead, so that the same problems do not arise, as we're developing this important office.

On getting agreement of the 53 organizations, truly, there have only been six so far that have been actively involved in the new Veterans Charter, the bill of rights, and the ombudsman. You're never going to get 53 people agreeing on one thing. I think eventually there has to be a leadership role by the government and by the department to say there's an agreement that we need an ombudsman, so let's look at some models. The DND ombudsman model is a good one. It's worked. Maybe we have to tweak it a bit. Let's move forward.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I think we have agreement on the one. We've stated right from the beginning that we wanted to establish an ombudsman. Actually not everybody was onside at the time. Right now I think they are, and these hearings have been important because they have embraced that need.

So that we aren't caught by people saying we didn't ask them, or we didn't care for what they said, how do we melt those 53 down? How do we know who to talk to so that as a government and as a committee we can do our job and gather that at the end of it? We can take the leadership--that's not the issue. We know what we want to do. Now we're looking at implementation. We're looking at the mandate, the establishment of the rules and regulations, who they report to, and what they should be able to do.

We all have our ideas, and I think those ideas are getting focused. But we want to make sure that at the end of it we don't have the comments that have come from Mr. Hoppe and Mr. Gollner that we didn't ask them or listen to them. We don't want that and you don't want that. This is an opportunity to put in place as pure an ombudsman as we can--a position we agree on.

[Tom Hoppe]

That's a tough question and it's going to be multifaceted. First of all, there's better consultation with Veterans Affairs, which means it's not an information briefing but an exchange of information. You have contact on the ground with your constituents. You can speak to the veterans out there. Veterans belong to many different associations, so we're able to get the word out. It will have to be a team effort.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Mr. Shipley, your time is up.

You're free to respond, gentlemen.

[Larry Gollner]

I'm heartened by your comments. When we were working on the new Veterans Charter it was not exposed to a committee such as this, for a whole bunch of reasons. The honourable members didn't have an opportunity, and it went through. We all know it was passed in a single day, and all the rest of the things. The Senate had one brief hearing. People didn't have an opportunity to express their concerns and/or support. In many cases people were supportive. That voice wasn't heard equally. Perhaps if a position were shared on the establishment of a veterans ombudsman, this committee could call witnesses to come forth and talk to you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Thank you.

Mr. Rota.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Before I begin my questions for our witnesses, I have one request from our analyst.

Mr. Perron raised something on the time to set up an ombudsman. I wonder if we can get an average and specific cases on the timelines for setting up an ombudsman, whether it's provincial or national, not only in our country--I was going to say our nation, but that's something we won't discuss right here--but around the world.

A military ombudsman usually deals with complaints from serving members in the Canadian Forces. A lot of the veterans' claims are not brand-new. They don't just pop up later on in life; many of them start with a serving member. Given your involvement with the military ombudsman's advisory committee, do you have any suggestions on how a military ombudsman and a veterans ombudsman could work together to clear up issues delaying the process of applications for disability pensions or awards? Do you see them in different offices, or do you see one office that covers both? Which way do you feel would work best?

[Tom Hoppe]

A number of things will have to be looked at. There's how the veterans affairs ombudsman will be structured and how that relationship will be developed with the CF and DND ombudsman. There's the issue of exchange of privacy information, because it will probably be two separate departments. I don't see it being under one. I don't know how it would work if you had two separate ministers and two separate departments. It's not my expertise.

So there's going to be the exchange of privacy information, and some kind of liaison will need to be set up so when it hits the end of the mandate for one, it could transition into another. Things will have to be worked out, and I don't know how that will be done.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

So you see two clear divisions there, one for veterans—

[Tom Hoppe]

I would say two clear divisions, with the mandates and the liaison between the two departments. As well, you have to look at the privacy issues regarding exchanging information.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Okay, that's nice to hear.

Your organization has often taken the lead in lobbying for improvements to some veterans benefits and programs, but you've also recognized that there should be a close—

Excuse me. I'll just wait for Monsieur Gaudet to finish, and then I'll.... Okay, can I continue?

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

Yes, go ahead.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

You have recognized the value of close cooperation among different groups. What kind of relationship should exist between a veterans ombudsman and the various veterans groups, notably during investigations and in issues involving a majority of veterans?

There is that relationship, and there are certain groups that are doing the work now. I'm thinking, particularly, of the legion, which is doing much of the work now. All of a sudden you bring in the ombudsman. How do you see that relationship developing, and will it have continued input into the investigation?

[Tom Hoppe]

I'll take the first part, and I'll let Larry comment on the one about the Legion.

I think a structure similar to the advisory committee that the current ombudsman has would be one in which you would have veterans. So, representing modern-day veterans as well as traditional Second World War veterans, you'd have advisers who are in the office daily advising the ombudsman on issues for veterans, as well.

I'll let Larry take the Legion side.

[Larry Gollner]

The Legion purports to speak for us all. It does not. Even within their own senior command structure, the positions they've taken at the dominion level have been challenged on their floor and in writing. Tom referred earlier to a very strong position that was taken by Ontario Command, one of the major components of the Canadian Forces legions, saying they disagree. So they don't speak for all the veterans--that's for certain--and they don't speak for us.

The Legion has a very good role, though. They have advocated on behalf of veterans for a long time. But we believe there's a difference between being an advocate and being an ombudsman. We're well acquainted with the Legion's senior staff, and we work with them all the time. They know they don't have the legal and financial resources or expertise to do the sort of investigation that an ombudsman's office can do, nor can they breach, for example, the privacy restrictions. The ombudsman moves in one sphere, and the Legion moves in another sphere. The Legion does a great job advocating--and we don't have any difficulty with that--but let's not mix up advocating and being an ombudsman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Mr. Rota, we're up on time. Sorry.

Monsieur Perron, we originally had you down, but I have a cross-off here. Would you like to take your five minutes?

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

Oh, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

All right. I thought you would, sir.

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

Coming back to the question whether the ombudsman should be accountable, we just heard from Mr. Marin, the former National Defence and Veterans Affairs ombudsman. I think he did a superb job, so much so that he was told his contract wouldn't be renewed.

I really like nominating people because our meeting is public. We also heard from Mr. Leduc, who is the ombudsman at the Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue veterans hospital. I don't know whether my colleagues will agree with me, but it emerged from this meeting that Mr. Leduc was an employee of the hospital's executive director: he answered only what she wanted him to answer. She also protected her friend Mr. Leduc when he was asked questions.

We heard from Mr. Côté, who is the National Defence ombudsman. Personally, I wasn't satisfied with his performance because we could see that he had both hands tied and couldn't really react because of the system in place in the Canadian Forces. His bosses are the general of the Canadian Forces and the Minister of Defence. He's protecting his job. He doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds him.

I don't blame either Mr. Leduc or Mr. Côté for acting that way because they're protecting their professional lives. However, it would be wasting our time and taking the wrong direction to have a Veterans Affairs ombudsman who would take the side of his real boss, who is the minister, instead of that of veterans.

I'd like you to comment on what I've just said. If you want to refrain from doing so, I'll understand, because I know you're often in a poor position to answer that kind of question.

[Tom Hoppe]

I will go back to our position as an organization. We support an ombudsman who has the teeth to do the job. How that's established I leave that up to this committee, because I'm not a constitutional lawyer. I've been on the advisory council of one model and I've seen that it's had success. I've heard of other models, as you have stated. Which one will work? I leave that up to you as committee members to decide. We as an organization want something that's going to work for our veterans, that's going to have some teeth, and that's going to be able to look after our veterans at the end of the day. That's our position.

Larry.

[Larry Gollner]

I absolutely reinforce what my president has said. We can't afford to wait for three, four, or five years before we have something in place, because unfortunately, as you know, there were two Canadian soldiers killed yesterday, and their families are going to have to be looked after. Hopefully, everything will be done, but we can't be vacillating and waiting for all the chips to be in position properly.