Veterans Affairs Committee on June 1st, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Good afternoon, committee members.

I just want to show you a lovely little chart based on Monsieur Perron's motion, which I can now follow. It's much easier than what I was doing last time with my pen, pointing it like a sundial at the various people coming up to speak. Anyhow, these little advancements we make are all good.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we have a study on the veterans bill of rights. We have our witnesses today from the department, who have come by and are gracing us with their presence. We have Verna Bruce, the associate deputy minister, and I'm going to leave it to her, because I think she wants to introduce her colleague.

So the floor is your, Ma'am.

[Verna Bruce, Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Veterans Affairs]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like just to say it's a real pleasure for us to have the opportunity to be with you this afternoon. Obviously, our whole goal is to be here to serve Canada's veterans, a job that we're very honoured to have, and we feel very proud that we're a part of the Veterans Affairs Canada organization.

We wanted to spend some time this afternoon on the work we're beginning on a bill of rights and an ombudsman. To set the stage, we are just barely beginning. So we're in the process of understanding what the options are and what may be required here.

Keith Hillier has the day job of being our assistant deputy minister of corporate services, as our money man, but we've also asked him to take on this file. It's a very important file for us, and we needed it managed at the assistant deputy minister level and needed it done by an assistant deputy minister who did not have direct responsibility for delivering services to clients, so that we wouldn't be in a situation of potential conflict--if you're trying to design a bill of rights for services that you're also delivering.

So without further ado, I'm going to turn it over to Keith. We have a presentation, and, Mr. Chair, we'd happy to take questions at your direction.

[Keith Hillier, Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Department of Veterans Affairs]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's a pleasure to appear before the committee. I thank you for this opportunity to acquaint members with two important initiatives being undertaken by Veterans Affairs Canada.

If I may, I will make a brief statement outlining the rationale and the progress to date on developing a veterans bill of rights and establishing a veterans ombudsman office, after which I'd be pleased to take any questions from the honourable members.

The creation of the veterans bill of rights and a veterans ombudsman office are of significant importance to the Government of Canada. The government provided the department with a mandate to proceed on both of these initiatives shortly after it took office, and since then, the staff of Veterans Affairs Canada have been working diligently to move forward on these two files. The bill of rights and the veterans ombudsman office will strengthen the government's commitment to our veterans.

At the moment there are a number of separate pieces of legislation, policies, and service standards that address the rights of veterans. The veterans bill of rights would not change any of these; rather, it would provide veterans with a clear and unequivocal statement in plain language of what veterans and the department's other clients can reasonably expect in their dealings with Veterans Affairs Canada.

The veterans ombudsman office will focus on service-related issues that cannot be resolved to the client's satisfaction through the current mechanisms for redress. It will provide an additional level of accountability for the department in upholding the veterans bill of rights.

Currently we are in the process of looking at various ombudsman models, both in Canadian institutions and other jurisdictions around the world. This is an important part of our research in developing a model that best meets the needs of Canadian veterans and all Veterans Affairs clients.

Veterans Affairs Canada takes great pride in its relationship with its partners, and the department values their input and support. Meaningful and ongoing consultation with the major veterans organizations are essential to achieving this endorsement and to ensuring that the veterans bill of rights and the veterans ombudsman office represent a genuine improvement in service to our veterans.

The process of consultation on the bill of rights is well under way. To date we have held discussions with each of the major veterans organizations, and I am pleased to report that the response has been very positive. The comments and input received so far indicate strong support for the creation of the veterans bill of rights. Their feedback tells me that veterans organizations very much see the ombudsman and the bill of rights tied together and moving forward as one initiative.

We are still examining varied and differing views on the purpose and operation of an ombudsman office. Therefore, without a clear model to discuss, our meetings with stakeholders to date have been intended to solicit their general views on the creation of an ombudsman. It would be premature to talk about any sort of consensus at this point in time.

I would be seriously remiss if I did not mention the importance of achieving the endorsement of a second group of stakeholders. The involvement and support of the staff of Veterans Affairs Canada is equally critical to the success of these initiatives. This reflects the simple, yet essential, recognition that it is the staff of the department who provide the day-to-day programs and services to our veterans, their families, and their caregivers.

At Veterans Affairs Canada, we take great pride in the fact that the department consistently ranks above all other Government of Canada departments in terms of client satisfaction—a clear demonstration of our ongoing dedication and commitment of our staff throughout Veterans Affairs. The bill of rights will serve as a reminder of this ongoing commitment to serving Canada's veterans.

We are confident that these initiatives will increase the department's ability to respond quickly and fairly to veterans' concerns and ensure that veterans' grievances with the system will be dealt with quickly and fairly.

I understand that Minister Thompson is scheduled to appear before the committee next week. I am certain that he will include a discussion of both the bill of rights and the ombudsman's office from his perspective at that point in time.

I thank you again for this opportunity, and I welcome your comments and your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

All right. Well, thank you very much.

I'm gazing over at our Liberal friends, wondering who the keenest of the bunch is.

Mr. Rota.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Actually, we got a request from Mr. Stoffer. If it's okay, I'd like to pass the question on to him. He has to leave early, and I know he has some wonderful questions. So in the spirit of cooperation, I'll pass that on to him.

If he's just going to ask a very quick question, I'll come back.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Mr. Stoffer, I'll let you know that's a quid pro quo, because he took your spot the other time. All right, fair enough.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

I was here, though.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Oh, that hurt.

Mr. Rota, thank you. Mr. Chair, thank you.

I want to let everyone know, especially our new members of Parliament, that the three people you see here, along with Louise in the back, are some of the finest employees Canada has when it comes to a department. I have dealt with them on many issues over the years--on veterans' issues, on legislation--and every single time the calls are returned, and they'll tell you straight up that it can be done, or it can't be done, or this is the approach you should take. I just want to congratulate you on that. The new Veterans Charter wouldn't have happened without their support in that regard.

My question to you, though, is with regard to the ombudsman's position. Looking at the military ombudsman, many times situations come up in which we're confused as to which person we should go to. If you look at Agent Orange, for example, we're told it's Defence, but we're dealing with veterans who have that issue on a personal note.

Would it not be at all feasible to expand the role of the military ombudsman to include a military/veterans ombudsman and allow that person the additional resources and manpower to do both, instead of having a separate bureaucracy on its own? Are you considering at least looking at the possibility?

[Verna Bruce]

I'll start off with that. We certainly are looking at it as one of the options. There are a lot of different ombudsmen in the Government of Canada. That's one. Others would be possible examples. It's too soon to say at this stage of the game what the final direction will be, but we've been spending quite a bit of time, and Keith has had numerous meetings with the Defence ombudsman to understand how they work, how they operate, how they're structured, and how they get their mandate. He's been extremely helpful.

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

Thank you. I'm sorry to have to leave again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

That's fine, Mr. Stoffer. Is that the extent of the questions?

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

That's it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Okay.

Then the five minutes remaining go to Mr. Rota.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There are a lot of different ombudsmen positions that we have to look at around the world. Australia's and the U.K.'s come up most frequently, Australia's in particular. It's not an ombudsman strictly for the military or strictly for veterans; it covers pretty well everything. In all fairness to Mr. Stoffer, the question I had in mind was very similar to his: at what point do we stop creating new departments or new ombudsmen?

Please explain it to me, because I'm looking at VRAB and how that works, and that's a kind of ombudsman situation in itself; when somebody doesn't find satisfaction, they go to VRAB and get some kind of solution.

Could you explain to me the difference between the ombudsman's position and VRAB, and where we're going with it? I understand we're still in the very early preliminary stage, and knowing what I know makes it difficult to actually put a question together, but maybe you could just compare the two situations. One would be an encompassing ombudsman who would cover all issues, as in Australia, and the other would compare VRAB to what we hope to get out of a new ombudsman.

[Verna Bruce]

Sure. I'll deal with your second question first and turn your first one over to Keith.

With respect to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, you're absolutely right. We have a separate independent tribunal. We have a staff of lawyers who actually represent cases for clients in front of the tribunal. We are the only veterans affairs department in the world that provides that service--but it is only for disability pensions.

Clients also receive a wide range of health care benefits from Veterans Affairs, ranging from drugs to the veterans independence program to placement in a long-term care facility. At present the mechanisms we have for people who are unhappy with decisions on those services are all internal. There may be an opportunity for an ombudsman to be involved in that particular area.

There may be more general issues that people have as well--issues with how they feel they've been treated by staff in the department perhaps, or broader issues that could not be part of the mandate of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board but could in effect be some of the things we might look at with respect to the mandate for an ombudsman.

That answer would be for your second question. I'll let Keith take your question about the Australian model.

[Keith Hillier]

You're quite right that some of the models we've seen—and we haven't been travelling around the world, but have been talking with some colleagues and doing some website searches and what have you.... It's an interesting question, and one that has to come up through the options that ultimately have to be reviewed by cabinet. There are a number of ombudspersons right now in the Government of Canada. As a matter of fact, just yesterday I met with representatives from a couple of departments on that very same issue.

It certainly has to be an option. Whether or not it will be the option at the end of the day to have an ombudsman for all of Canada is.... We're doing the research, doing some work, and putting together some options, and ultimately the minister and cabinet colleagues will have to decide on the direction it will go.

The Australian model is quite interesting. Obviously, you've done a little bit of work there. You'll see also, when you drill down into some of this stuff, that the ombudsman for Australia is also considered the veterans or the defence ombudsman as well. They seem to wear multiple hats.

We've looked at that particular model, but we've also tried to understand what's going on in Canada today. Correctional Service Canada has an ombudsman. Service Canada has an ombudsman-like function. Then, on a government-wide basis, if you look at the Privacy Commissioner or the Commissioner of Official Languages, while they're not called ombudsmen, the reality is they perform an ombudsman type of service on behalf of all Canadians.

It's in the mix, but certainly we have to look at.... When we go into this, particularly when you start consultations, you have to go into it with an open mind, because if you go in saying to folks that you have decided this is what it looks like, then the other side of that coin is, “You could have saved my time and yours, if you've already made up your mind.”

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

You have twenty seconds.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

I'll make a quick comment then.

I'm glad to hear what I just heard, because the concern I had was about what I see as an ombudsman for every department, almost, and what I would see happening is a lot of duplication of administration, and possibly silos being built. You're going in with an open mind. I want to compliment you on that.

Maybe it's something we can push up and then maybe spread out countrywide, so that there is just one department of the ombudsman, with different divisions; maybe that would be a possibility. It's just nice to see that you have an open mind and are going in that direction.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Monsieur Perron.

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

Welcome to our committee; welcome to your committee.

My first question will be brief and simple. What is an ombudsman? You have three minutes to answer.

[Keith Hillier]

I think Verna says it's yet to be defined.

Interestingly enough, when I have talked with veterans organizations, just at the preliminary stage, I have asked them to tell me what they think an ombudsman would look like, and I think it's fair to say there's a fairly significant diversity. When the word “ombudsman” is used, there is a fairly significant.... Different images come into people's minds, different thoughts.

At the end of the day, one of the key functions of an ombudsman is really to be someone for those who feel they haven't received the proper service from a department. Ombudsmen generally deal with service-related things, where someone feels they haven't been treated fairly by the department and I guess at the end of the day disagree with a decision by the department, etc.

After you go away from that basic premise—and I'm sure that over the course of your hearings, veterans organizations will be here and making their positions known to you, so I don't want to speak on behalf of them—I can tell you there are some differences, but fundamentally, veterans organizations I think generally agree there will be an ombudsman. They have very different views as to how that role may operate, and that's really the reason for the consultative process, but I think everybody wants the same goal, and “the same goal” for an ombudsman is to improve the level of service for veterans either on an individual case basis or a more system-wide basis.

There are differing views. I couldn't tell you today that there's a consensus among veterans organizations, or even probably in our own place, as to what the actual role will be.

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

You're taking too much of the time that's been allotted to me to ask my questions. Your answers are too long.

May I briefly give you my definition? Isn't an ombudsman a watchdog, a defender of widows and orphans, as we say in Quebec? Isn't he a person who plays the role of defender of the oppressed, of those in trouble? That's my definition. I don't know whether you would make it yours.

To whom does the ombudsman report? Who will be his boss? He can't be under the minister's responsibility, because he can't speak out against the person who feeds him. You don't bite the hand that feeds you. So he'll have to report to the House.

[Keith Hillier]

There are generally two models. Again, just using the Canadian situation, the ombudsman in some cases reports to the minister, and in other cases, if you look at what I would call a more systemic ombudsperson, such as the Commissioner of Official Languages or the Privacy Commissioner, they report to the House. As part of our development of the model, those are the types of options that would be put on the table as to the reporting relationship.

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

We have good proof of that before us: the case for former ombudsman André Marin. He defended the military so well that the minister told him his contract wouldn't be renewed. But he did a very good job.