Veterans Affairs Committee on Dec. 6th, 2006

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

I'm just—[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Okay, understood. I just want to be able to go through this and then kick it wide open, and then people can say what they wish. We do have time. The committee doesn't officially wrap up until 5:30. We have the room anyhow, so I thought we'd also get this out there.

I like the idea of their having at least a yearly opportunity to come and speak to the committee when they table their report, and have media there, have something that's televised and everything else so that everybody can hear what they have to say, because I think that's their great hammer, if you will. That's what the Auditor General has. Once a year or whatever, she can come and give her presentation and everything else.

In terms of the term of office, I think it should be potentially renewable if they've done a good job. We have options of five years renewable; five years, one term only; six years renewable; six years, one term only. I prefer something that's renewable. Five years is a shorter timeframe than six and probably allows us, as a parliamentary committee, or the government or whatever to actually have a quicker turnaround if somebody is a problem.

In terms of the mandate, I take into account what Mr. Hillier just said, which is to keep it short and simple and something a soldier can understand. I like number one, “Review of all issues pertaining to care, support, and compensation for veterans,” just because it's shorter and simpler and has fewer caveats on it and, I think, is more open.

In terms of a review of mandate, I think that every five years is fine, and number three is the option there, “Every five years by Parliament through Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs”. I don't see any reason, if indeed we're the ones drafting the report and recommending how it should be set up, that it can't be this committee that reviews the mandate of it.

As for access to documents and departmental officials, there are three options there: number one is full access; two is “full access after completion of...” blah, blah, blah; three is “limited access.” Based on the testimony of Mr. Marin, I would prefer “full access on demand”, because if you're going to want to have them do the job, they might as well have the tools necessary to do the job.

When it comes to contact with the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the first option is “only upon tabling of the report”; number two is “to inform the minister prior to the tabling of the report”; number three is “to consult with the minister”. I personally like the idea of informing the minister prior to the tabling of the report. The way I would see that working is this. Let's say, for example, you set the date at April 1 or something like that, when they made the report to the committee. Therefore it would be sometime in mid-March, I would think, when they could privately inform the minister and let him know some of the concerns they had, what they'd probably be raising in their report to the standing committee. That way, the minister and his office would have a couple of weeks to, hopefully, try to fix some of those things or at least have a heads up on what's coming down the pipe. I think that just makes for better government.

In terms of the question of costs, this one here has three options: “funding allocated by Parliament to an officer of Parliament”; “funding allocated within the Veterans Affairs portfolio”; “funding provided from the budget of the Department of Veterans Affairs”. As far as this one goes, I wonder how the Auditor General is structured. I'm not sure off the top of my head how the AG.... Is it number one? Mr. Perron is indicating number one. I see other little fingers stabbing in the air. I'll take that to be the case, then. It feels like I'm playing “Who Want to Be a Millionaire?” and phoning friends on the lifeline. Well, if that's the case, if the Auditor General is structured that way, it would make sense to me.

In terms of the amount of the budget, I honestly don't know. I think we do have to worry when we're first setting this up. I always have this concern about government, that we give something too much, because I've seen around this place in my 10 years that governments spend a lot of money. And it's far better left in the taxpayers' pocket. But I would suggest that in five years' time we can review the mandate of this thing, and if necessary increase it.

We had numbers tossed around here even today about whether it's going to be 17,000 cases or 200 cases. How many is it going to be? I would say that at first you start off with a smaller budget, and then if circumstance requires, review the mandate and what not, to increase that, and so be it. As far as staffing goes, I would generally say the same. We should probably tend towards the lean at first and then, if merit shows it to be necessary, increase that later on.

I think they should have the ability to address systemic issues. It makes sense to me, because if you have a multiplicity of things happening and it makes sense to deal with it in a holus-bolus manner, then that's probably the way to do it.

In terms of the timeframe, Mr. Stoffer raised that question. I would say, once again, don't restrict them in terms of their ability to do the job. If they think they need to look back at issues prior, then let them do so.

Those are my thoughts, for whatever it's worth. I've kicked it out there for our analyst to do with as he wishes.

I don't know if others wish to add.

Monsieur Perron, Mr. Stoffer, and then Mr. Valley.

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

Mr. Chair, I agree with what Bev said earlier. We should sit and talk, and be serious about it.

I for one would like to participate in this process, but I do not want a model that would be similar to the one of the national defence and Canadian forces ombudsman.

After the problems national defence had in Somalia, it was decided to appoint an ombudsman, Mr. André Marin, to appease the Canadian citizens and the military. Back then, and even today, it was never considered that the approval of the House and elected representatives of the people should be sought through a bill, because it was simply a departmental initiative.

Am I right, Mr. Rossignol?

[Michel Rossignol, Committee Researcher]

The decision was made by the Minister of National Defence.

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

So, the national defence and Canadian forces ombudsman is not supported by any federal legislation. This position was created by the department and the general-in-chief to appease the Canadian citizens.

If this is the kind of ombudsman we want to have, let the Minister of Veterans Affairs, Greg Thompson, choose the way he wants to go about it.

The ombudsman should not be considered an enemy, but an ally of the department. Above all, he or she is a person who will look after the interests of veterans and make recommendations to the department. This position will have to be establish through a piece of legislation. Otherwise, we are doing all of this for nothing, and we will end up with an ombudsman who will be controlled by the minister, just like the existing ombudsman is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Okay, Mr. Perron. I'm in agreement with you, and I think most of the members would be. So who do you want to have hire them?

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

Nobody.

We should make up our minds. All the questions you raised are interesting. Do we want the ombudsman to report to the House or to a committee? Do we want him or her to be a kind of auditor general? To we want the ombudsman to report to the department?

That is the first point that should be settled. After that, we will be able to answer all the interesting and relevant questions you asked. But first of all, the House needs to create this ombudsman position and determine its mandate through a bill instead of merely giving directives to the department.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Okay. I think we're largely in agreement on that.

Mr. Stoffer.

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

I know that Mr. Côté had a difference of opinion, but I can't stress enough my belief that the ombudsman should have as much independence as possible. One of the recommendations that I'll be looking for--I'm not married to this; I just throw it out there. I'd love to have a consensus from this committee so we can have a unanimous recommendation go to the minister. And I will do everything I can to achieve that, working with my colleagues here. The only real thing I would look for is that the ombudsman report to Parliament like the Auditor General does. And I'm not married to that. If there are contrary views, I'd like to hear from my colleagues--not now, but later on--because I just think that way it eliminates any discretionary political nonsense that may occur because of it.

I understand Mr. Côté said that it's an opportunity for the ombudsman to work with the minister in order to achieve this.

And on the hiring practice, Michel, you have to help me again. Who actually hired Mr. Marin and Monsieur Côté? Was that by order in council?

[Michel Rossignol]

I'm not sure if it was an order in council. I'm not familiar with exactly how it was done.

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

I didn't have much of a problem with their appointments--in fact, I think the previous government picked a couple of good people--but we want to make sure that whoever the ombudsman is, that person is not picked--and this I blame on all political parties--in the same way as VRAB has been done. We know there are a lot of ex-politicians of various parties who are on VRAB and who may not have the expertise we think....

Pardon?

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

They're not from various parties.

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

No, exactly, so the attitude is that we want to make sure the ombudsman is free and clear of all types of politics in that regard, and if the person is truly independent, then I think we'll have achieved a great deal.

I agree with most of your recommendations on the other points you have made, though, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Go ahead, Mr. Valley.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Thank you.

I have to ask. I've only seen a couple of reports--I've only been around here a couple of years--but I thought that's what this was. This is what's coming to us in the report, though.

I understood that when we come back, we are going to have it in our hands for roughly two weeks or 10 days before we get out so that we could study it, and it would tell us why there is one, two, three, and we have to pick. By then we should be informed about it.

Some of them are easy--maybe we don't have to make a big decision about the term of office--but I want to know about the accountability report to Parliament and who said that. I thought it would be in the report.

Those are the two I've seen before. There will be four options, and it'll say who said to report to Parliament. For number two, it'll say who said that. Is that not what we're looking at when we come back?

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

That's the spreadsheet I asked for.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

I thought that would be in the report; I don't know—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

I'm just opening up the discussion. I'm trying to help Michel when he does this over the Christmas break.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

I think he's clearly going to have to report on all of these—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Yes, I know.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

—because we've heard a lot of information, but I think it's up to us to be informed. At that first meeting when we get back, we don't want to hold it up. We have to decide which one we're going to support. Then we tell Michel that we agree with number three, or we agree with number four. We have a discussion, and bang, bang, bang--one after the other, we do them. I thought that's where we were going in the report. It almost sounds to me--without putting words in your mouth, Mr. Chair--that you're trying to steer it right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

No, no. I'm just saying, based on everything I've heard so far.... I just grabbed this document from him just a few minutes ago--he can tell you--and I went through it with a highlighter. Nothing is preconceived here.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

As I said, I've only seen three reports, so I don't know.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

No, I'm just tossing this out because I'm trying to help him put it together.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Yes, but I was afraid, Mr. Chairman, that you were going to come and we'd only have the reasons for number two, and if we carried on this discussion today—