Veterans Affairs Committee on June 13th, 2006

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

Thank you very much.

I really appreciate having the three of you come out and talk to us as individuals. I think the reality is that this is where the rubber meets the road. We've had some great presentations at this committee. I think you'll find that all of us want to work to make this good for veterans. That's why we're working towards this ombudsman. We all agree on it. Mrs. Hinton has said that we want to make it right the first time.

Can I go to the model? You've laid out the 14 issues. I'm not questioning them; I'm just trying to get a little better understanding.

On number 1, “True and robust investigative powers”, could you expand a bit on that?

On number 7, the “Legislated protection for those that come forward, similar to 'Whistle-blower provisions'”, I don't know that you can answer this, but as we look at our Federal Accountability Act, which brings in new criteria for whistle-blowers, would that not encompass this? It's a question I don't know the answer to. Mrs. Hinton is shaking her head no. So then I guess you could speak a little about what you would see in that.

Then could you expand a bit more on number 12? We've had a lot of discussion about the close relationship between the Department of National Defence and the CF ombudsman. You want to have that relationship and yet you want that separation.

Maybe you could help a bit on those three.

If I have any time left, I have another question.

Sean.

[Sean Bruyea]

I'll try to be brief so that you can get another question in, Mr. Shipley.

I'll do 1 and 7, and then Tom is going to talk about 12.

The robust investigative powers are crucial to the ombudsman's office. Expanding upon that, this would give them the powers to call up files or to enter into the files of the department. They could compel the department or those involved to provide testimony as to the situation being investigated.

The investigative powers would also be, in large part, enhanced by the training of the investigators, so we want to make sure that we have some good quality staff on board.

In the models that we see in Europe, in Germany, as well as what we see even in Canada, at home, with the CBC ombudsman, it's the powers of investigation that make the ombudsman. If they cannot bring the department to the table, if they can't get the department to respond within x number of days, then basically their investigation runs up against a brick wall. So we have to make sure they have more robust powers in order to carry out that investigation, and that way we get better results, more timely results, and more efficient results.

As far as 7 goes, with the whistle-blower act, I'm not sure where that would lie either. Would this be an addition to the whistle-blower act? Would we put in an amendment for veterans? Traditionally, I think the whistle-blower act is looking at public employees or federal service employees. I don't think we're being original here, but hopefully we can emphasize that veterans are a unique class. They are totally dependent. They have a fiduciary trust with the government because they depend on the Department of Veterans Affairs for basically everything if they are seriously disabled.

We have to protect them to make sure that if they're going to help improve the system by coming forward then they also have robust powers of protection, and that it's detailed, because bureaucratic harassment can be extremely broad-reaching and extremely subtle. So we have to make sure that there are very well-defined protections for those veterans coming forward.

[Tom Hoppe]

To answer your question on the connection between the two offices, under the current mandate for the CF ombudsman, former members can go back with a complaint. The issue then becomes where the dividing line is between a VAC member and a former member of the Canadian Forces. So that's going to be something that has to be worked out. And it could be worked into the legislation when it is written.

The other thing that has to be taken into account is the transfer of information. If the information that the current CF ombudsman has is confidential and private, is he able then to release that information to the VAC ombudsman and vice versa? That's going to have to be put into legislation.

The connection between the two offices is going to have to be seriously looked at in order to ensure that nobody falls through the cracks. The soldier will cross between the two because they are so closely linked.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Mr. Shipley, my heart goes out to you, but we're over time.

Mr. Rota, go ahead, please.

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

I have two questions, and I'll start with my second one because it kind of ties into what Mr. Shipley was talking about.

Perry, Sean, Tom, thank you for coming out. It's nice to see you all again. I know you've done a lot of work. I read through this, and there has been a lot of thought go into it--not that there was any doubt in my mind initially--and it's nice to see it all packaged very well.

My question relates to the model that you see used. We've looked at different models from around the world. Australia has one that is all-encompassing. Germany has one. Britain has one that's independent. You're kind of leaning towards having an independent ombudsman strictly for Veterans Affairs.

I guess I'm just thinking out loud here, but would it make sense to have it be a division or a part of the CF ombudsman? I'm thinking that because some of the cases start while someone is in the military and then follow through to when the person retires or comes out of the forces. So that's one of my concerns. Would it not be better to have one? It would allow us to hit the road running, and it would allow for continuity.

It's a question; it's not a statement. I know you've put a lot more thought into this than any of us has, so I'm wondering what your thoughts are on something like that.

[Sean Bruyea]

We released a report in November; you'll see there's a chapter on three models and the pros and cons of each model--it's a pretty general approach. Since then, I've come to understand that veterans would be grateful whether it's independent or combined with DND. I want to make that point clear.

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

Okay, so there's no....

[Sean Bruyea]

We'd be very grateful for an ombudsman. The important thing is to make it real, not window dressing.

I agree with you 100%. There are some economies to be saved by the Canadian compromise, instead of putting it completely under DND or making it completely separate. I think there could be two subdirectorates of the same ombudsman that have some sort of independence within that same department.

You're absolutely right, the training time for bringing people online would be minimized; there would be economies of scale in terms of cost savings with infrastructure sharing. There is also what I would call a prestige dividend that comes with the ombudsman for both departments coming forward and representing issues, both to the public and to official bodies like this.

Furthermore, there's also the point you made; it would make the transition much easier. Transitioning from DND to VAC is a very complex process, but some corporate knowledge could be shared, and veterans would be less likely to fall through the cracks in a makeup like that.

[Tom Hoppe]

One issue you have to look at is if the DND ombudsman is reporting to the Minister of Defence and now he's looking after Veterans Affairs, who's his boss? He has two.

On the resources side, if the DND ombudsman takes 2,000 and all of a sudden it spikes up to 30,000, what's that going to do to his office?

I would like to see a division of the two because of who you're going to answer to. Unless they answer to Parliament, and you make it a separate body, then that resolves the issue. I think you'll find the two-boss thing could create a problem.

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

By making it answer to Parliament, would that make it that much stronger? It seems to be a much better model, and it would have continuity.

Again, it's nice to say we have the economies of scale, dollars, but we're dealing with human lives. To me, it's more the continuity from one level to another, so that individual doesn't get everything dropped out from under him and then you end up with, “I'm sorry, I can't get your history from that department because they won't release it”, or.... You know the games that get played within bureaucracies--just that thought.

A question regarding VRAB. How would you see the ombudsman working with VRAB? Would they be working together, or would it just be a report and then VRAB would have to respond to whatever report the ombudsman would come up with?

[Sean Bruyea]

VRAB is obviously a very delicate matter. As a tribunal they have to have independent authority. However, legislation and policies apply to VRAB, and resources must be managed. The oversight would ensure the legislation is being followed.

I believe it was you, Mr. Rota, who pointed out in testimony last year, making the very clear point that there is no tracking of cases when VRAB makes decisions. It's nice to treat all those individuals as separate cases, but at the same time there has to be some sort of legal precedent if they claim they're a quasi-legal tribunal.

So in terms of VRAB, I think there could be a close working relationship, especially in understanding the boundaries of crossing the line into the area of tribunal proceedings. At the same time, VRAB needs to be accountable in terms of upholding the legislation.

As it currently stands, in the Pension Act and the VRAB Act there are two mechanisms for sending files back to the department. In spite of numerous pleas, VRAB at this time will not articulate the conditions for sending a file back to the department. An ombudsman would be able to come in and say, “Wait a minute, why are we convening a tribunal for a file that could be sent back to the department under certain conditions?” That's an example of where the ombudsman would be able to work to greater efficiency.

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

Can I just ask one thing for Mr. Cuzner? I'm going to ask it anyway.

Can I have the document Mr. Gray quoted from? Period. I asked it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

I'm sorry, Mr. Rota, my job is to be the timekeeper; this is my role.

Now I have to go over to the Conservative Party. I wonder if Mr. Mayes, Mr. Sweet, or Mr. Shipley have any questions.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

First, thank you very much for the high quality of information you're giving us.

I want to mention a couple of things. First, I share your concerns around the VRAB and the number of cases, close to 60%, that are granted new benefits.There has not been a real analysis about why that is happening, and we share those concerns. I want you to know that's taking place.

Also, Mr. Gray, I think all of us here--certainly I have--in some way have been on the other side of feeling bad when injustice is done, and at this committee we're trying to make sure that we go through this process and have capable, wise people like yourself give us information so that we can make sure that this process is done right. I wanted to say to you that in every minute that ticks by, I'm passionately aware of that. At the same time, we want to deliver for our veterans the best possible answer for all their concerns for the future. So listening to stakeholders, taking the time to vet the information, making sure we make a quality decision--these are of paramount importance to us.

You mentioned there was no response from the Legion regarding your report. What about any of the other organizations? You mentioned six other veterans organizations. Did you get any response from them?

[Sean Bruyea]

No, none whatsoever.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Excuse my ignorance--this is my first time on this committee--but how many years have you been an advocate for the concerns and rights of veterans?

[Sean Bruyea]

I started entering the process in 1997.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

I need to ask you--because we got to this conversation--again, because it's our concern to get as much quality information as we can, have some of your efforts been around trying to develop good communication lines with all the other organizations so you can get consensus...well, maybe not consensus, really, but an accurate feeling of what the broad spectrum of veterans groups are feeling from all the different areas, and of course most currently now from Afghanistan?

[Sean Bruyea]

For sure, I know that Perry and Tom are itching to respond to this one because this is dear to everyone's heart.

First, I want to say that all veterans organizations do a great service to all Canadians and the veterans they serve. At the same time, there has to be a separation. The sort of exclusive relationship that exists between only a few of those veterans organizations and Veterans Affairs, to the exclusion of the vast majority of clientele they serve, is an injustice that has to end. Hopefully, that's what an ombudsman will help do.

I'll pass it over to Tom in one second.

First of all, freedom of representation and assembly, of course, are fundamental rights that we all recognize in the western world. There should also be freedom of not associating. In order to get his or her case heard, a veteran should not be forced to go through an organization. A veteran should be able to deal directly with the department and receive fair, equal, and just treatment. Even the Legion put that in its bill of rights, and I commend them for that. That's a very important point that has to be recognized. Equality is fundamental to all bills of rights throughout the world, and I think that would have to be considered in a bill of rights and carry great weight.

[Tom Hoppe]

To answer your question a little further, I've been involved in this for over nine years, especially with the organizations. There's a transition that's happening right now. The soldier in Afghanistan, at this point in time, really doesn't have a voice. In most of the veterans organizations, the traditional ones, and in one of the major ones, two-thirds of the membership have never been in uniform. The remaining third are former World War II and Korea vets. When these people sit at the table, the traditional veterans organizations tend to have a larger voice than the modern-day veterans organizations, and the modern-day veterans organizations are very small in number. So when things like the bill of rights, Bill C-45, are formulated, they are done from a different view. Of course, the person who is impacted by it is the modern-day soldier serving in Afghanistan.

The ombudsman can help in that situation by not only looking at one generation or one era of conflict, but by looking at the client. I think that's going to be crucial, because as much as the organizations are doing wonderful work, you don't find many young members in them. They're very exclusive.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

To clarify my comments, certainly I do think they're all doing good work, and when institutions work well, not only in and of themselves but inter-institutionally, then it creates a synergy for better communications. That's our concern here at the committee, that we get more communication.

Finally, so I can get a handle on your experience, I want to know if either of you have had involvement with the Canadian Forces ombudsman, and if you have, could you give us an idea about your involvement? Obviously, you'd be happy about that because....

[Tom Hoppe]

I've been on the advisory committee for the ombudsman for four years. I've been there since about a year or so after Mr. Marin started, and I'm now with Mr. Côté in that level. So I've seen the development of the office through that committee. And for members of the forces I've directed to the office who have needed help, I've seen their results as well.

[Sean Bruyea]

I had mentioned threats to the security of veterans coming forward. I said that personally I've experienced that. There has been a situation going on for the past 18 months, since I made the first public call for an ombudsman, where there has been a notable increase in the scrutiny, auditing, harassment, and denial mechanisms that exist in the department.

I had to approach the ombudsman after all mechanisms in the department at the time had failed. The ombudsman was sympathetic, but clearly said his mandate does not help me for speaking out in favour of an ombudsman. So he made a few phone calls--the office made phone calls on my behalf. However, it's clear that the department was not obligated to deal with him in any form whatsoever. That's an example of how the veteran can fall through the cracks when the one mandate ends and the other one begins.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Mr. Sweet, I just want to let you know your five minutes are up, but the NDP is not here and then it reverts back to the Conservative Party. So even though it's at 6 minutes and 30 seconds, there are still another three and a half minutes left on the Conservative side, if somebody wishes to pick that up.

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

I just want to comment in regard to the ombudsman. I think just the fact that the person will be in place will cut down on the number of appeals that have to be made, just because the people who are working with the veterans and with the cases know that somebody else is watching over their shoulder to make sure they are fair in their assessments.

I found that in my previous life in local government. As a mayor, when I knew things were happening and I could see what staff were doing and how they were relating to our customers in the municipality, it seemed there were fewer problems and I had fewer phone calls.

So I think just that fact will cut down on the workload for the review and appeal board. That's a very positive argument for an ombudsman, not just the fact that it's going to be independent and have the ability to be an advocate for the veterans. I think that's an important issue that needs to be stated.