Veterans Affairs Committee on June 1st, 2006

[Verna Bruce]

I'll let our chief financial officer speak.

[Keith Hillier]

The way the process will work is that obviously the minister will have to take options and recommendations to his colleagues. It would be our intention to try to identify costs around that. When we move forward, whether it be through regulation or through legislation, as you mentioned, we would be identifying the cost both in the department and the cost of setting up the office of the ombudsman. We would hope we would get support for that, and then that would, in turn, translate in us going to Treasury Board to get additional funding.

That's the mechanism, whether or not it actually plays out that way, but certainly the intention would be to move forward and identify additional resources. The risk of going the other way would be taking resources away from services that are currently being provided to veterans.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Back to the parameters within which an ombudsman might work, and I know this is a work in progress, is it imagined that, for example, a member of Parliament would be making an inquiry on behalf of a constituent to the ombudsman, which we do all the time to Canada Pension, to EI people, and so on? Is it anticipated that members of Parliament would have access to the ombudsman on behalf of constituents who presumably would have granted permission, authorization, to do so?

[Keith Hillier]

I would see no restriction with that, but that certainly wouldn't take away from an honourable member's prerogative of actually writing directly to the minister on behalf of a constituent for whom they have a concern.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

I have a final point, Mr. Chair.

One of my happier experiences with an ombudsman was a bank ombudsman for one of the five main banks. Very briefly, it was a constituent who had assets on the side that weren't the usual things but were still marketable things. He collected Star Trek collectables. They were limited edition things. He had quite a bit of this stuff, but he and his wife were starting a business and he had a hard time getting a loan from the bank. I called the ombudsman and I was amazed that the ombudsman called the bank manager and things started to happen, because it really shouldn't have been a problem from the get-go.

One of the things that occurs to me is that--I don't know what the bank's procedures are--they didn't object to getting involved. Whatever stage the loan process was in, I wasn't told, “You can't ask us to look at that problem now because it's still on the manager's desk.” We got good cooperation.

Is it imagined that a veteran going through an appeal would be allowed to access the ombudsman through the process, or would they have to wait until all the processes have been concluded before they could access an ombudsman? Could they anticipate a problem? I'm trying to imagine the situations that may fall under this category, but I'm just wondering if you anticipate putting barriers or hurdles, maybe necessary ones, to when a veteran could access the ombudsman in the process.

[Verna Bruce]

You would have to do that particularly around the pension process, which is again the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, because the pension process under the Pension Act is so clearly defined that there is no legislative possibility for an ombudsman to be involved there. You'd have to keep that process very separate.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Mr. Mayes, I believe you had some other questions.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

It says the veterans mistrust the system and believe they need an ombudsman. That's the statement I have before me. Do you think that's a failing of the department?

I agree with what Mr. Stoffer had said earlier, in that I am the son of a veteran and my father has had great experience with Veterans Affairs. They've taken care of him very well. That's what surprised me, and once again I get back to the volume of appeals. Are the people who are there now providing a service maybe using a different sense of discretion in favour of the veteran to minimize the number of appeals and the need for an ombudsman? If that's the case, and if, as you've said, it's because they distrust, that's not a very good indication of the sense, or is it just that veterans don't know how to take the word “no”?

That's the challenge I see. Do you have an answer for me?

[Verna Bruce]

Sure. We do regular client satisfaction surveys, and we actually have very high rates of satisfaction from our clients, but there will always be people who aren't happy with what we do--and we do have to say no.

As you're aware, the pension process is complicated. While you could get, yes, you do have a pension, you may get, no, you're not getting 100%, you're only getting 60%. Even though you've got a yes for 60%, you've got a no for 100%, so maybe you're unhappy.

None of us is perfect, and we try not to have our staff be cranky, but they're human, so there will be occasions where people are concerned about the level of service. It's important for them to have an ombudsman and a bill of rights that would deal with the concerns that may raise.

We do have many stories like yours in terms of the service we provide to Canada's veterans, and we take very seriously the quality of service we provide. We're very proud of it.

[Keith Hillier]

If I might add, I would hope that some of those comments you referred to were comments made prior to the new Veterans Charter. I think there has certainly been, for certain categories of veterans, significant frustration that we didn't have the tools or the programs to meet their needs, particularly for the modern-day veteran. I would argue that some of what we may call the mistrust or some of the general unhappiness was a frustration that somebody was ill and needed service. Until we got the legislative authority, we weren't able to make the type of intervention that needed to be made for that particular individual.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Mr. Mayes, does that wrap up your questions?

Okay, we have about two minutes left. I'm just wondering if either Mr. Shipley or Mr. Sweet have any other questions.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I do.

I guess I'm really happy. I think one of the things is we're all here for a purpose--to serve the veterans. We heard the other day that it needs to be fair and fast and friendly, and that's regardless of whether it's going through an appeal or through an ombudsman.

All of us will have some interpretation, as you've mentioned. Basically there have been only one or two occasions with that...and they try to facilitate, to provide the answer to, where do I go? People understand you can call an ombudsman and they will help you, facilitate for you, give you direction, give you good help in that way. I think that may be one of the interpretations.

Is that something you're looking at? Can you talk a little bit about that? Is that still all part of what you're looking at--the definition? Are you also looking at the breadth of the scope of what they will do? Are there some ideas on that?

[Verna Bruce]

Those are both things we're looking at. You have to take a look at what it is we're going to be looking at and how an ombudsman would do that. So you're right, those things--

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

That also makes a large difference, has a significant impact, obviously, on your office and how it works--all that.

[Verna Bruce]

Exactly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Okay.

Now, Monsieur Perron.

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

First, as you move forward in creating this new ombudsman's position and in your efforts to ensure compliance with the Veterans Charter, I hope you'll have the decency to keep us committee members regularly up to date on your progress.

Mr. Chairman, I hope we'll be able to schedule meetings for this purpose in six months or in a year. You're doing a good job. I think you're on the right track.

I have another problem, which I believe is a moral issue. I'm not claiming that the Veterans Review and Appeal Board is doing a bad job, far from it. However, it has a very, very bad reputation, particularly among those who lose their cases. I understand them, because, when they appear before the Board, they say to themselves that the lawyer representing them is paid by it. We can't bite the hand that feeds us. I feel the ombudsman should correct this appearance of conflict of interest with the Board. I sincerely believe that the ombudsman's position should not come under the wing of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. An effort should even be made to ensure that he is housed elsewhere than in your building in Charlottetown, to prevent people from getting the impression that the whole thing is biased. The position should be taken out of the minister's hands, and the ombudsman should report to the House committee or another entity. You're smart enough to find a solution.

I'd like our committee to be involved and to go see the various associations to ask them for their opinion. He's doing a consultation, but we could conduct another one, at the same time as his. Two heads can work with more determination than one. I think it would be a good idea to ensure the ombudsman's appearance of freedom.

Do you want to make any comments? I've made mine in good faith and without malice.

[Verna Bruce]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

If I may, Mrs. Hinton, I think, has something to respond to Mr. Perron on that matter.

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

Oh, I could certainly wait for the answers, but I just want to say that I agree with you wholeheartedly.

I think this committee is master of its own destiny, and if there are consultations that this committee wants to be involved in, then that's exactly what this committee should be doing. If we're going to be acting in the best interests of veterans, then we should be talking to a lot of the user groups, as you're saying, and we should be having some consultations and we should probably be looking at other models of what's happening around the world. Otherwise, how are we going to get the best model for our own people?

Yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

If I may, because there's still a minute left....

[A voice]

I'll give it to you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

You're a kind man, sir. Bless your heart.

We've alluded to some other places, and I note the work here of some of our staff. The United States has the GI Bill of Rights, there is the Strategy for Veterans in the United Kingdom, and there is the Service Charter of the Australian Department of Veterans' Affairs. I would be very keen on finding out more about those and how they compare to what we're coming up with, and then doing a bit of compare and contrast, for whatever that's worth.

Now it's Liberal time. Do we have anybody who wants to speak? All right, that's absolutely fine.

Is there anybody on the Conservative side who has more to add? No, okay.

Are there any more from the Bloc? Mr. Gaudet? No, okay.

I would like to thank our witnesses very much for appearing today. You were very generous with your time, and we appreciate that.

As Monsieur Perron said, “I think it would be very valuable for you to engage with us as you go through this process.“

Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned.