Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 27th, 2006

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

But not being involved in consultation doesn't necessarily mean a gag order. A gag order means thou shalt not speak.

[Larry Gollner]

I only came in when the gag order was in place, and it was one of our principal concerns. It was April Fool's Day, April 1, 2005, and we were given a comprehensive briefing. We were told at that time we were not permitted to share that advice, that information, with our membership, that it was under cabinet confidentiality. And that was frustrating, because three of us were being briefed, and we had a working committee set up, ready, that had been providing information and they were asking what happened--you got a briefing, so where are we going?

[Tom Hoppe]

And also, sir, just to add to that, I believe there was testimony in 2005 from Mr. Leduc, who stated who was involved then, as well.

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

Very good.

Gentlemen, thanks again.

You also indicated that when someone in the defence department has a problem, they can go to the ombudsman. I remind you, they can also go to MPs, as well, just as veterans can, or the odd time, senators.

One of the concerns, though, that the defence ombudsman has is that he can only go back so far. Things that happened prior to that, he can't touch.

André Marin, in October 2003, did a report on SISIP that said thou shall change the particular rules. It's now November 2006, and it hasn't been done yet. We've had two elections and two different governments. The ombudsman very clearly stated a specific fact that had to be done, and it still hasn't been done. If you're on SISIP, imagine what you must think of an ombudsman, now. You've gone before him, you've gone before his people, you've stated your case, he's agreed with you, he's made recommendations to government, and two different governments haven't changed it yet.

So unless--and I'm not saying an ombudsman is ever going to get this--they can have the legislative tools to actually change policy, in many cases, it's an advisory function, a recommendation board. At the end of the day, if the government or the minister chooses to ignore a particular recommendation, they still have that legislative ability to do so.

Can you not still see in some cases the frustration from veterans in this regard?

[Tom Hoppe]

Oh, I think you could. That's why, as an organization, we want to see something that works. How is that done? I'm not a constitutional lawyer. There are many models out there.

I think with the SISIP thing, too, we're also dealing with an outside insurance agency. The ombudsman at Veterans Affairs--and I'm taking a guess--would deal with internal matters and maybe it might be resolved better.

I guess there are a number of ways you can look at it.

[Larry Gollner]

If I might add to that, Mr. Chairman, in the briefing we coincidentally had a few minutes before we arrived here, the SISIP problem the honourable member mentioned was brought up again. The Department of Veterans Affairs is finally getting the message we've been beating them over the head with for 18 months or longer. They know the problem is serious, because it was a serious problem before, and it has been compounded by the new Veterans Charter.

For your members' knowledge, we are the only armed forces in NATO in which serving members have to pay for their liability insurance. In fact, by doing so, when an individual is invalided out of the service and draws SISIP, that lets the public purse off the hook. The serving member in Afghanistan is paying for his coverage.

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

Thank you very much, gentlemen.

My last question for you is more positive. Art Connolly, of the Agent Orange Association, has been asking for a national public inquiry into what happened in Gagetown. If we had an ombudsman with the proper resources, human and financial, to do a comprehensive so-called inquiry of his own, would that not be a proper way to go, instead of having a public one? For example, it could ease the call, and maybe save money as well, by having an ombudsman with the legislative authority, to go back as far as he or she wanted to go, instead of having a restricted date that thou shall only clean up files, say, from 1990 on. Would you not agree that once they establish the ombudsman position, there's nothing that person, as far back as they want to go, couldn't reach into? Would you agree with that?

[Tom Hoppe]

Yes, we agree.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Thank you very much, gentlemen.

Now, on to Mr. Sweet, for seven minutes. If he doesn't take up his whole time, I understand that Mr. Shipley will help.

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

Thank you, gentlemen, for coming today and being willing to give testimony to help us with our report to the minister for an ombudsman.

Regarding the new charter, you mentioned there was not the time nor the resources to really have a complete dialogue and consultation for the input of the veterans organizations. Regarding our investigation now on the ombudsman, you mentioned you've been communicating with the bureaucrats in VAC and that you feel it has been bogged down in the bureaucracy. Have you been aware that we've been holding these meetings and consultations over the last few months?

[Tom Hoppe]

Do you mean the committee?

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

Yes.

[Tom Hoppe]

Yes, we're aware of that.

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

Had you approached this committee before we contacted you, as far as coming today for testimony?

[Tom Hoppe]

We did approach the committee, yes.

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

Okay, good. I just want to make sure that we're not in the same boat of not listening as well.

What is the size of your membership?

[Tom Hoppe]

Our membership right now, the organization itself, is 1,000, but we are also in, for example, with Mr. Gollner, the regimental associations and we have some ties in with some reserves as well. The actual membership size is 1,000.

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

The 1,000 is either veterans or their immediate spouses. Is that also including the active members—

[Tom Hoppe]

Yes.

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

—or the active members are over and above the 1,000?

[Larry Gollner]

No, members are members.

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

So it's 1,000 members right now.

In my opinion, we've had two sessions of quite compelling testimony by two ombudsmen. They were talking about systemic investigations and you've been talking about a number of things right now. So we have it on the record. When a veterans affairs ombudsman is in place, what would be your preference for the first systemic investigations that an ombudsman would undertake?

[Tom Hoppe]

The two I can think of, and Larry can correct me if I'm wrong, would be the initial application process, because that's been a concern that VRAB has raised, and the relationship between SISIP and the new Veterans Charter.

You have to understand that under the new Veterans Charter, with the 75% income replacement, if SISIP kicks in first then Veterans Affairs doesn't have to kick anything in. As Larry was saying, the soldier in a sense is paying for his veterans benefits, because SISIP is going to kick in first, which he's been paying for.

Those would be the two I could think of off the top of my head.

Larry.

[Larry Gollner]

I would think that another major area of concern, and I can't define it in a brief paragraph, would be, as I mentioned earlier, the interface with the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Canadian Forces when a wounded individual moves across from being a Canadian Forces member to being a Veterans Affairs client.

We have these wonderful models, but we're finding in Edmonton, where my regiment is principally based, that if Murphy says there can be a hole, well, a veteran will fall in that hole. That is an area we would certainly expect to see the ombudsman get involved with.