Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 27th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Good day, ladies and gentlemen. It is yet another glorious day for the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.

Today we have, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), for our study on the veterans ombudsman, the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association. We have Tom Hoppe, national president, and Larry Gollner, special assignments.

I will let you gentlemen know that you have 20 minutes. You can split that up as 10 minutes apiece if you like, or you can do whatever slice and dice you want. Afterwards it's opened up to questions from the floor corresponding to what we have here. And hopefully you'll have a chance to address some of the questions or the schematic that's been laid out by our researcher. Hopefully you have copies of that.

Gentlemen, the floor is yours.

[Tom Hoppe, National President, Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll start with my opening remarks, and I apologize that they're not translated. They've been given to the clerk, and he will translate them as you go forward.

Mr. Chair, respected committee members, I want to thank you for inviting us here to speak today. I am Tom Hoppe, the national president of the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association, CPVA, and with me is Larry Gollner, who is our past vice-president and who leads our special projects team. Larry has been involved in the development of the new Veterans Charter and the early development work done on both the veterans bill of rights and the veterans ombudsman function.

In June, I had the opportunity, as an individual, to have a small part in a presentation to this committee. Today Mr. Gollner and I are here not as individuals, but to represent our association, other Canadian veterans, and, in principle, serving Canadian Forces members.

For the past 14 years CPVA has been actively involved in the veterans community. We have a solid history of working cooperatively and supportively with the government and the Department of Veterans Affairs to improve the conditions for all veterans, young and old. We also have a strong reputation for doing our homework, and on occasion challenging Veterans Affairs. Our challenges are constructive in nature and are usually done within the confines of the consultation process.

Our successes are well documented. CPVA has assisted in developing the veterans helpline, aided in paving the way for OSISS and in securing Parliament's approval of the Canadian Peacekeeping Service Medal, and has worked with the University of Victoria law faculty to provide well-researched information to facilitate the development of sections of the new Veterans Charter.

CPVA consistently focuses on suitably representing the interests of both traditional and modern-day veterans. Our association was successful in recruiting two serving members to join our board of directors. This allows us to better understand the demands of the modern veteran community. We also have well-established relations with a number of regimental associations. These relationships lend us credibility and the ability to provide current advice to Veterans Affairs on the needs of both our veterans and our serving members.

Why is this important to the committee? The information we provide today is based on years of working within the veterans community in collaboration with other related organizations and on having an intimate understanding for the current needs of the veterans and serving members.

One question we are constantly asked is why a veterans ombudsman is important to veterans. Presently, the more than half a million veterans are represented by a number of associations and organizations, all of which concentrate their efforts to best suit the needs of their members. For example, there are organizations that serve the veterans of world wars and others that serve veterans of UN peacekeeping and peacemaking missions. Some of these focus on period of service or activities; others focus their efforts on the social well-being of their members. Due to this dynamic, the overall veterans community does not have one voice. Although some would have us believe that they have the authority to speak for us all, they do not have such authority.

Why are the internal struggles or politics of the veterans community important to this committee? It is essential that you understand that the veterans organizations have a major impact on how veterans legislation is developed. I am sure that Veterans Affairs has told you that the development of the new Veterans Charter had input from and the support of all veterans organizations. In our experience, this was not the case. The truth is that veterans associations, while active in the development process, did not have the time, resources, or permission to consult with their membership on the critical changes being formulated on pension policy. Under the guise of cabinet confidentiality, Veterans Affairs imposed a gag order on a dozen or so veterans representing their organizations, effectively eliminating any meaningful and democratic discussion within the veterans community at the grassroots level.

After the passage of the new Veterans Charter, considerable consultation was done on formulating the regulations and policies, leading to April 6 of this year, when the new Veterans Charter was proclaimed. On April 6, the then Deputy Minister of Veterans Affairs, the late Jack Stagg, stated that the charter was about 80% complete but needed amendments. He also stated that he expected the work to progress quickly on both the veterans bill of rights and the ombudsman function.

Shortly thereafter, the Prime Minister echoed Mr. Stagg's statement. Since then, seven months have passed without meaningful consultation taking place. We have repeatedly volunteered to help and have considerable resources available to do so, but Veterans Affairs has responded with a polite “thanks, but no thanks”.

The much-proclaimed consultation process is clearly faltering.

In summary, the veterans community is split into numerous factions. The consultation process is faltering. The problem is compounded by the inconsistency of support by various veterans organizations, and as a result we have a confused overall veterans community.

How does this impact the Department of Veterans Affairs? Department officials too frequently state that an effective consultation process was in place during development of the legislation, regulations, and policies. In fact, not all associations were consulted, which has occurred more than once, and as a result, we feel senior department officials have lost the respect and trust of some of the veterans organizations. We have to understand the culture of members of the military services. They do not usually complain and will not work outside the chain of command. However, VAC is not only very bureaucratic, it is also legalistic in their process.

When a wounded soldier or veteran is faced with the inflexible system, he or she has nowhere to turn except to the media or the Federal Court. Who can effectively challenge a federal ministry? Most veterans or associations do not have the resources to do so effectively. Hence, when fundamental issues and important questions arise concerning veterans at large, we feel that only an ombudsman could effectively challenge a federal department.

How should the ombudsman office be structured? We believe that the DND-CF ombudsman operation and definition is a good model. The only difference is the veterans affairs ombudsman should be legislated. An ombudsman will provide an avenue to allow the veteran to have a place to turn to that can investigate why a policy or regulation is not working and provide a solution. A prime example would be the high amount of claim refusals due to the initial application process. Naturally, refusal of a veteran's claim results in a veteran not immediately receiving the services from VAC. As well, there is the concern of the duplication of SISIP and the new Veterans Charter rehabilitiation programs and how it will affect the transition of a serving member from the CF to VAC.

We do not see the veterans affairs ombudsman challenging a judicial decision made by VRAB, but an exception might be if there's a specific invitation to do so by the minister or the VRAB chairman. An example would be the investigation by the ombudsman of why the VRAB has such a large backlog of cases. However, some individual veterans may also feel they have been left out in the cold by having their cases rejected by the VRAB and they will undoubtedly return to the ombudsman seeking redress without going to the Federal Court. To help address this concern, we would see some practical options and approaches develop to ensure that such individuals receive the assistance they need to appeal their cases before the Federal Court system.

Members of Parliament and bureaucrats understand we need to support our veterans and serving members. However, we feel the establishment of the veterans affairs ombudsman is caught up in the bureaucratic process. The establishment of the DND-CF ombudsman has proven to be successful; therefore we are of the opinion the veterans deserve to have a place they can turn to for fair and equitable treatment.

In conclusion, it is essential to understand the connection between the veterans community and the development of policy and legislation. It is also important to understand the changing demographics within our veterans community, and which of the veterans groups involved truly represent all veterans. With these concerns in mind, the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association believes the establishment of a veterans ombudsman is a critically important element of the introduction of the new Veterans Charter.

The government of the day said the new Veterans Charter was major legislation that has the capacity to impact tens of thousands of serving members and veterans. Therefore, with an untested Veterans Charter and a growing number of wounded coming home from the Afghanistan mission and with the split within the veterans community, it is clear that having an ombudsman is absolutely in the best interest of our veterans as well as for Veterans Affairs.

Thank you for allowing us to make this presentation, Mr. Chair, and I invite your questions, with which we can offer more than just through the presentation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

No problem.

You have used nine of your twenty minutes.

Is there anything that Mr. Golner would like to add to that?

[Larry Gollner, Special Assignments, Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association]

Not at this time, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

All right. Fair enough, gentlemen.

First up, for seven minutes, is Mr. Valley, for the Liberals.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Thank you very much for your presentation.

I want to take you right to a couple of your comments. I don't want to suggest that you said this, but I'm going to ask because I thought I caught it in your comments. You talked about the challenges of all the organizations and trying to be heard. You said no one speaks for all of you at once and you asked how you could actually get your message across. But I did think I heard you say—and please correct me if I'm wrong—that there hasn't been a lot of consultation in the last seven months on some of the issues you're trying to move forward. Was that a statement that you made?

[Tom Hoppe]

Excuse me, but did you say that in the last seven months there was consultation?

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

There hasn't been a lot of consultation on these issues.

[Tom Hoppe]

There has not been consultation in the last seven months. Actually, we just came from a meeting that, coincidentally, had been set up by Veterans Affairs just prior to this meeting. That's the only consultation we truly have had on the bill of rights and ombudsman since April.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

I think you're at the right forum right now. I won't look back on those seven months. We're going to try to look forward from here—

[Tom Hoppe]

That's true, yes.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

—and at how we do that. That may seem a little strange coming from an opposition member, but that's the way I want to deal with this.

Tell us straightforward, straight out, how we get you back in the system. I'm not sure how we can listen to all of them, but what's the proper procedure for us to use to hear from everyone?

[Tom Hoppe]

I'll say a little bit on that, and then I think Larry can add more to it.

Veterans Affairs has to realize what organizations truly represent veterans. There are many organizations out there that, due to demographics, have membership populations that are changing. Some organizations have a very large membership of civilians who never wore uniforms, and then there are other organizations that are in touch with the serving members and modern-day veterans. I think the department has to look at how they're going to prioritize who should be involved as we move forward, because we are impacting the serving members and the modern-day veterans. They have to sit down and figure that out, and then get those people into the process.

Larry, do you want to add anything?

[Larry Gollner]

Mr. Chair, I would add to Tom's comments that all of our members are veterans or their immediate spouses. We also are tied in with a number of regimental and corps associations within the armed forces. That allows us, as Tom mentioned in his opening comments, to have serving members on our board.

On my own committee looking at the development of Bill C-45, the new Veterans Charter paper, I was fortunate to have two injured members of the Canadian Forces. They brought a special poignancy to the discussions, and the points they brought forth weren't academic. They weren't based on legal jurisdiction or who was concerned. They were talking about themselves and their families and how the new Veterans Charter was going to affect them in the future.

That immediacy of the input that we can provide is much different from that of, say, the Royal Canadian Legion—of which I am an active member, I might add—which has a large office here in Ottawa, is well staffed, and has a command structure across the country, as everybody knows. They have 400,000-plus members; however, their contact with the serving individuals is much less common than that of a group like ours. They certainly have contact, and they do a very good job in a number of aspects, not the least of which is providing advice to claimants for Veterans Affairs benefits.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Thank you.

In part of your comments, I think you mentioned that the attitude was almost “thanks, but no thanks”, but we're the organization that can try to correct that message for you to Veterans Affairs.

We've talked about the ombudsman. That's why you're here to discuss this with us. We know the challenges vets and your organizations have had in trying to get their message across. We've heard some of that.

From our side of things, we always deal with confidence. That's how we get elected. We have to build confidence. We know that confidence is not necessarily there amongst the veterans that they're getting served in a proper or appropriate manner. We're trying to change that.

How important is this one item of an ombudsman in terms of putting it in place? How big is it in the eyes of the veterans to make sure they have confidence that we know what we're doing and that this is the right step? Is this a big thing for them?

[Tom Hoppe]

The ombudsman?

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Yes.

[Tom Hoppe]

It's a very big thing.

We know the serving members are used to having an ombudsman in the Canadian armed forces, which has been very successful.

Don't get me wrong, the VAC staff are doing wonderful work and the best they can on the front lines, but sometimes veterans are caught, because of policy and the bureaucratic structure of VAC. They have a place to turn to in DND, but veterans have nowhere to go. As I've said, soldiers will work within the chain of command to the best of their ability, but there's a breaking point where they need to go somewhere. They have nowhere to go, so they go to the media.

A veterans affairs ombudsman is very crucial because it will allow veterans to go to the ombudsman and present a case that may be a systemic issue, such as the relationship between SISIP and the new Veterans Charter. It's a systemic issue.

The ombudsman could then look at it, resolve the issue, and make the department more effective. It will help the veterans. Yes, it is crucial to the veterans.

Larry, do you have anything to add?

[Larry Gollner]

To follow on Tom's comment, I would say we often hear from Veterans Affairs colleagues—and we call them “colleagues” because we've worked closely and cooperatively with them over the years—that we have the Veterans Review and Appeal Board and it can solve all the veterans' claims.

Well, the Canadian Forces have the redress of a grievance procedure. This is a formal legal procedure that has been established for generations.

With the establishment of the Canadian Forces ombudsman, the department didn't fall apart. It seems to be in business, and people still work through the redress of a grievance procedure. But if they're not satisfied, before going to Federal Court they have that different option and can go before the ombudsman.

The other thing is there are some things that the department would like the ombudsman to look at, because there's an interface between the Department of National Defence and Veterans Affairs.

From talking with my own regimental association, right now I know that if there is a difficulty with our wounded coming back from Afghanistan, it's a grey area between the two departments. It's not the lack of people trying and it's not necessarily the policy. The two departments aren't quite in sync yet.

It's compounded by the new Veterans Charter. The new Veterans Charter was implemented on April 1, and very shortly thereafter we started taking casualties.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Thank you very much, gentlemen.

We now move to Monsieur Gaudet of the Bloc, for seven minutes.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is as follows: are you in favour of creating an ombudsman position?

[Tom Hoppe]

I'm sorry, I'm not getting the English translation.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Are you in favour of creating an ombudsman position?

[An hon. member]

He said no. Keep going.