Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 27th, 2006

[Tom Hoppe]

Basically we provide advice to the ombudsman on cases, different points of view--a sounding board. That's basically how we work as an advisory committee.

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

Did I understand you to suggest earlier that it would be good to have such a committee for veterans?

[Tom Hoppe]

You definitely need to do that. You need to have the main veterans organizations on there so that you can get the feel of what's happening on the ground, for both traditional veterans and for modern-day veterans. It's crucial.

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

If there were a review mechanism built in, if the government ultimately agrees to start off.... It may not be perfect, because DND's a different constituency from Veterans Affairs. Would it make sense to get started, and then as part of a three- or five-year review do the necessary tweaking to improve it?

[Tom Hoppe]

I think that would be fair to say.

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

While there may not be unanimity among the constituency associations on the best place to start, might there be agreement that any start is better than no start, to put aside any initial disagreements over the finer details to get started, and then agree at a review time to make any necessary improvements?

[Tom Hoppe]

Yes, I think that's a way to go, because we do need to move forward on this. As the committee members have said today, to have 53 organizations try to get consensus is going to be difficult. If we move forward and get the right people involved in it, the right organizations, and we have a review, I think that would be a good way to go.

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

You used two words that I thought were exceptionally descriptive. You referred to “traditional” veterans, those who might have been involved in the Second World War. We have only three from the First World War left, but then there's Korea. And some of the earlier peacekeeping missions, I suppose, would include what you might call traditional veterans. Then there are the “modern-day” veterans, those who have left the forces in say the last ten years or so.

Could you characterize whether they really make up two distinct groups in terms of their needs? I'm thinking of an uncle of mine who was hurt in 1942-43, just within weeks of being in training camp. He was 17 or 18. He was too shy to speak up, so he continued, injured. Now he's 80, and that knee has troubled him all his life. I wonder if for the people leaving the services now there's better record keeping and less shyness on the part of younger recruits to speak up.

I'm wondering if we're dealing with two different mindsets--from the traditional veteran versus the modern-day veteran--and if that would impact an ombudsman's work.

[Tom Hoppe]

When it comes to veterans, we feel a veteran is a veteran. We used the words “traditional” and “modern” just because that separation is out there already. We'd like to see everybody treated the same. My feeling is that a bullet does the same damage, whether it was in World War II or in Afghanistan.

Naturally, as a person ages their medical needs and the help they'll require is going to be much different, and Veterans Affairs is looking at that already. Is there much difference? In age, yes. Record keeping probably has improved. In regard to people not speaking up, in the combat arms you just do your job. You don't speak up, and you just carry on, even if you have a bum knee.

There probably are a lot of similarities over the years. I think at the end of the day, veterans should be treated as veterans. That way you wouldn't have this split that you're having, and different charters and legislation.

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

Finally, a couple of my colleagues have asked about the reporting. There probably would be a difference of opinion on whether it should be to the minister or to Parliament. Although in my mind, in the way that Mr. Côté described his reporting to DND through the minister, he still has the ability to report to the public, and there is an annual report to Parliament. I gather you are satisfied that the DND ombudsman's authority is not being reduced by his reporting through the minister.

[Tom Hoppe]

I think, as Larry said, in a perfect world we'd like to have the best, but how much time do we have to get this in place? Maybe the method that Mr. Côté is using is working. Why not put that in place and make it work for the veterans ombudsman?

The thing is time and practicality and what's best for the veterans at the end of the day.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Larry.

[Larry Gollner]

I would just say, going back to one of your earlier questions, sir, that you and your colleagues are absolutely right. We have had in British Columbia, where I'm from, an ombudsman for more than 35 years. It's the same thing in Ontario. This is not new in Canada. Today we have our serving members who are acquainted with the ombudsman. This is not a new concept.

There are 700,000 veterans who believe they should have an ombudsman. It's interesting that one of our strongest advocates in support of an ombudsman is Mr. Cliff Chadderton, who I'm sure you all are well acquainted with. He told us a while back that he took part in the Woods commission in the 1960s, which recommended a veterans ombudsman. So it's been a fair number of years coming.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Thank you, gentlemen.

We have exhausted the list of people who have indicated they'd like to ask questions.

Mr. Stoffer, go ahead, please, if you wish.

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

Sorry, I just assumed there was an automatic going around.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

There is, but we've come to a point where people aren't putting their names forward any more.

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

Oh, sorry, Mr. Chair.

I have just a quick question.

You talked about members of the military with problems who went to the DND ombudsman, and about how if we have an ombudsman now for veterans affairs, then veterans can go the ombudsman. But a classic example is the case of a veteran dying and the spouse being left behind. We'll take, for example, VIP. A particular individual in Cape Breton was assured by a certain person, who was an opposition leader and now just happens to be Prime Minister, that the VIP services would be done immediately. Now, ten months later, they haven't been done yet. So this person has a legitimate complaint, but she's a civilian, and she's the spouse of a veteran. In the perfect world we talked about, should civilian members attached to veterans have the right to use the ombudsman's services to launch concerns, complaints, or whatever it is that they have?

For example, this particular lady is applying for VIP services. Even though the legislation is absolutely correct that the government is not doing anything illegal--the legislation states this very clearly--she's not getting exactly what the legislation states. But if she feels that she has a valid concern, in your view, should she be able to use the services of an ombudsman, as well?

[Tom Hoppe]

Yes. I think you have to look at the whole family unit. If you look at the bill of rights that we are looking at, family involvement is on the bill of rights. So yes, if someone is having that issue and is a spouse of a veteran, the mandate should be broad enough to allow for a family member or a dependant to launch a complaint.

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

Okay.

I'm not a lawyer on this question, but it's similar to people developing class action concerns against the government. I'm taking the concerns of the veterans who came back from World Wars I and II and Korea and who were mentally or physically challenged. For whatever reason, the government of the day said they couldn't handle their finances, or something, and that money was put in trust for them. This money has developed into billions of dollars in interest, apparently, and I guess there's litigation now happening on that.

Would you ever foresee an ombudsman being able to get involved in this, prior to it going to the courts? Once it goes to the courts, the ombudsman, obviously--I assume legally--has to be out of the question and let the courts follow the natural path of legality. Would an ombudsman, in this particular case, be able to investigate something of that broad a nature? That is long. It's expensive. Could you foresee doing something of that grand a scale, or should the ombudsman do something more compact in terms of policy arguments?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Larry.

[Larry Gollner]

That's a loaded question, but fair enough.

Regarding the mentally damaged veterans, that issue--I believe I'm right in saying--is under appeal, is it not?

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

It's in the court system, yes.

[Larry Gollner]

So if we brought an ombudsman on, he's certainly not going to get involved with the court process.

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

That's right.