Veterans Affairs Committee on Dec. 6th, 2006

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

I think you're going to find a consensus once we correlate all the information we've been given, so that everybody's not going back and reading. With your support, I hope, I would like to see the clerk correlate the information so we have some kind of general consensus, a broadsheet, if you will. He can find the common factors on these issues, the things we need to put into the position.

We can see that problem as a committee, but I'm wondering if you can save the committee a little bit of time and, with the help of the clerk of the committee, put out a spreadsheet with both those commonalities and those things that were unique to one witness.

[Keith Hillier]

Certainly, Ms. Hinton, we're prepared to help. This is something we could speak about to the clerk. We don't want to be perceived as interfering with or trying to influence the committee.

Having been around some of these things over time, my suggestion is that if the committee were to agree on certain principles for the ombudsman, the rest would flow very quickly. For example, if you were to agree that the ombudsman--the Canadian-made model--does not have the right to interfere in the legal process, if you were to agree that the ombudsman would have a right to look at systemic issues, if some of the principles of operation--if I could call it that--or some guiding principles were agreed to among the honourable members, you would probably get to something tangible a little more quickly.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Do I have a minute left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

No.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

I want to say sorry to Michel, because we've done this to him before.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Okay. I think he's noted that.

Now we're on to Mr. Stoffer for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Sir, you indicated earlier in your testimony that ombudsmen are individual beasts. They have their own idiosyncrasies in how they do things. When the ombudsman files a report, would you recommend to the government that the report go to the minister first or should it be reported to Parliament first?

[Keith Hillier]

That's a matter the government will have to decide in the model that comes forward. It will have to decide whether the ombudsman reports to the minister or to Parliament. Once you've made some of those decisions, the other tends to flow.

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

Ombudsmen will work if they truly feel they have independence and they don't have somebody telling them who to investigate and who not to investigate, except for the legal concerns you've outlined.

The military ombudsman has a lot of latitude in what he looks at, but he's stymied by the fact that he can only look at cases to a particular year and nothing before that date, which I think is wrong. Should the ombudsman for Veterans Affairs be able to look at all issues, regardless of the date?

[Keith Hillier]

Again, that is a decision the government will have to take through the parliamentary process to finalize what the model is going to be.

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

But correct me if I'm wrong. You're going around consulting with groups, right, and obviously giving advice to the minister. Am I correct?

[Keith Hillier]

Yes.

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

Would you be advising him, then, that if and...not if, when it comes into being, the ombudsman should have the right to investigate any and all cases, regardless of the date?

[Keith Hillier]

My advice to the minister will be to basically lay out what veterans organizations have said to us. I think if you look at the earlier testimony--and my memory is not perfect--my sense is that this really has not been a large issue with many of the veterans organizations. I think it's fair to say--and I can't speak for veterans organizations--from my review of the testimony here, that it seems that certainly most veterans organizations are looking at this on a go-forward basis, as opposed to looking at something that may have happened, for example--I'll be extreme to make a point--in 1942 or at the end of the Second World War.

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

My last comment, Mr. Chairman, is that I want to thank the government publicly for the change of the Memorial Cross, the Silver Cross, which now allows the veteran--the soldier, airman, or air force person--to determine who receives the Silver Cross, or Memorial Cross, in the event of the ultimate sacrifice. I thought that was actually a good thing yesterday, and the government should be congratulated for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

I'm going to take that on behalf of the minister.

Okay. We've now exhausted our list of speakers.

Mr. Hillier, I know that you have a great deal of--what's the word I'm looking for here--interest, I guess it would be, with regard to the next subject we're going to be dealing with, which is the bill of rights. We are going to be starting our official list of witnesses with regard to that on Monday. Is there anything you'd like to say with regard to that?

[Keith Hillier]

I would just like to reiterate the comments I made earlier. The clear message from veterans organizations is to keep it simple, keep it straightforward, and make sure that people can understand it. I think if you use those guiding principles, as I said to Ms. Hinton, then in fact I think you will. That's certainly the message, because in the consultation I've been doing--let me be very clear--while I have consulted on the ombudsman, I have consulted on the bill of rights as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

We'll go to Mr. Stoffer, quickly.

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

I'll go very quickly, yes. We know we're talking about a veterans ombudsman and a veterans bill of rights. But would you advise that families of veterans should have access to the ombudsman as well?

[Keith Hillier]

Let me respond this way. Again, it will be a Government of Canada decision, but I think it's fair to say that the ombudsman is there for the clients of Veterans Affairs Canada, and families, in many cases, are clients of Veterans Affairs Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

We'll go to our last speaker, Mr. Stoffer. I'm hoping that Mr. Gaudet is our last speaker.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Just a quick remark.

What bothers me is that the 22 or 23 associations you met with may be afraid to lose their power. Is that a possibility, and that would be the reason why they say everything is fine?

[Keith Hillier]

Just as a point of clarification, when I referred to number 22, that was the number of district offices. The number of veterans organizations I met with was six.

Responding to the second part of your question, no veterans organization expressed that concern to me.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Thank you very much, Mr. Hillier. Now I'm going to say thank you for appearing, and at this stage you're free to do as you wish.

I'd like to take a bit of time here, based on the fact that I asked our researcher for a kind of schematic that we laid out for some of our witnesses, and also based on the comments of Mr. Shipley. I don't often do this. I'm usually pretty quiet in allowing everybody else to speak. But I would like to initiate a bit of a discussion in terms of what direction we'd like to provide our analyst over the Christmas break for his drafting of the report. I'd like to just briefly discuss a few of those things.

I'm going to lay out on the table what I would like to see in terms of an ombudsman, and then if it opens up discussion for others in terms of what you wish to add, feel free.

We have three options in terms of appointment: by Governor in Council, by Governor in Council after a review of candidates by Parliament, and by the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I would probably choose number two, just in the sense that I believe that for just about any appointment, it never hurts to have a parliamentary committee able to examine these people, ask questions of them, and see if they have what it takes to do the job--and to satisfy us, to make sure they're well qualified for the position. I don't think that ever hurts.

Number two, on accountability, the options are to report to Parliament, report to Parliament with review by the standing committee, report to Parliament through the minister, or report to the minister. I think I prefer reporting to Parliament with review by the standing committee. The way I see it working would be kind of like what happens with the Auditor General, where they have an opportunity at least once a year to go ahead--

Please bear with me, Mr. Perron.