Veterans Affairs Committee on June 1st, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

One more minute.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

The topic, obviously, that was dominant most of the time surrounds the homeless shelters. I expect there will be other follow-up questions on this item. There was an area on which I still am not sure I understood the issue, and certainly no one wants to find people who are left behind, as the ombudsman said. But I was a little bit confused as to the process your department carries out with the shelters. I sensed that if there was an area of disagreement, it seemed to be around the direction that maybe staff were getting as they work with shelters. What would be the general direction from your senior staff to those on the ground as they deal with the shelters in this particular regard?

[Keith Hillier]

The general direction is to make contact with the shelters and/or the individuals who are responsible for the shelters. The issue of homelessness is not an easy issue, and the way of dealing with it may not be the same in every particular city or every particular province. If you look at things such as shelters, soup kitchens, etc., many of them are organized differently. Some of them are run by umbrella organizations, some are independent.

I've been around the public service long enough to know that you can't sit in headquarters and say “Thou shall” and all of a sudden the issues are going to be resolved. You have to leave it, in my view, in a broad policy framework, and the goal is first of all to avoid people becoming homeless. But sad to say, some do, so the direction I've given to my staff is to work with the local veterans organizations, work with the shelters, work with agencies—whether it be the Salvation Army, the Red Cross, provincial social services—and create the connections. The connections have to be made on the ground so that when somebody identifies himself as a veteran....

We will get what I might call a tip or some information that we have a veteran in the shelter. You need to understand that just because someone is a veteran, and just because they're in the shelter, that may be their choice, and notwithstanding the intervention that we have, they may not be ready for our services and programs. Sometimes it takes a period of time to create a relationship, and that's where I'd like to make the connection with the OSISS peer support coordinators. Sometimes when someone is homeless, let's face it, they're down and out, they're probably angry at society, they're probably angry at the government. So sometimes it takes a connection by someone such as a peer who has had some of these very same difficulties and says, “You know, I used to be like that, but there is help, and these are some people....” You have to build the trust factor. So yes, getting information from police departments, getting information from social service agencies, those are all good things, but at the end of the day we have to build that trusting relationship.

I guess if I look at it, we have to also understand the diversity of the country. If we look at Parliament in itself, Parliament has representative members from every part of the country. Every part of the country has its own particular views, its own particular issues, and that's why we just don't have one parliamentarian but over 300 to reflect the views.

In that same thinking, we have to allow local managers to be innovative. There are some innovative projects that we're ready to launch in some of our big cities, but the reality is that they have to have some flexibility to be able to do that. We have a veterans helpline that's open 24 hours a day, staffed by counsellors. It's not an answering service; there's actually a counsellor who can help you. There's lots out there. The trick is to make the connection, and the trick is for the local managers, who know their environment--the people in social services, the people in the various agencies--to talk to them and say, “How can we make the connection?”

Last but not least, there are veterans who are homeless and who want to be homeless. I can tell you of a situation of a veteran I know of in a particular city who's homeless. He lives in his car, because that's his choice. He doesn't want to live at a fixed address for a number of reasons. But that's the reality. That doesn't mean the person isn't getting services from us. It doesn't mean he isn't getting help. But he's made a certain choice because of other factors in his life that he doesn't want to live at a fixed address.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Kerr.

Thank you, Mr. Hillier. You said many things that were very authentic. One, certainly, is that there are 308 members of Parliament, and all have a different view. We're going to hear from one right now; that's Mr. Andrews.

Go ahead, Mr. Andrews, for five minutes.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Hillier, thanks for coming in. It's good to see you again.

I want to go back to recap or fill in some blanks on access to information, concerning what information the ombudsman does have. I'm going by some of the notes our analyst gave us.

Is it correct that the veterans ombudsman is classified GCQ-4, compared with our armed forces ombudsman, who is at a GCQ-6 level? Is that correct? Why is there a difference? Who established this clearance level, and what would it take to change it?

[Keith Hillier]

There are a couple of things.

First of all, I don't know the exact levels, but I can tell you that there is a difference in the classification levels between the DND ombudsman and the Veterans Affairs ombudsman. As to whether one is classified at level 2 or level 6, I couldn't give you that fine a sense.

What we all need to understand is that in government the amount paid to people, whether they be order-in-council appointees or whether they be public servants such as I am, is based on a classification system, and there is a methodology for deciding.

For example, just by way of comparison, if you look at various legal tribunals and various boards, whether or not they're GICs, not everybody who serves on a government board gets the same paycheque. There's a system that determines the complexity, the consequence of error, decision-making, the number of staff you have, etc.

I can only presume that in the case of the ombudsmen, whether DND's or others', they have somewhat different roles and a different responsibility, and that those who make those decisions have in fact judged that GIC-2—I think that was the number you referred to—is an appropriate level, based on the roles and responsibilities of that person, as compared with—

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Is it a decision of the minister as to what level of classification...?

[Keith Hillier]

No, it's not a decision of the minister; it's a government-wide decision. The minister doesn't get involved in the classification. That's the administration of government, and the minister is not involved with setting the levels of compensation.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Aside from compensation, in terms of the level of access they would have, would you not say the two ombudsmen should have the same level of access within the department?

[Keith Hillier]

Not necessarily; the access the ombudsman or any GIC—or anybody in the department, for that matter—has is determined by a memorandum of understanding or by what their contract is. In the case of the veterans ombudsman, there is an order in council that very specifically gives him certain authorities, and it very specifically outlines things for which he does not have authority. Whether he's a level 2, a 6, or a 5 is really irrelevant to that part of the discussion. The key part is the mandate he was given by the Government of Canada. That's what's really germane to this debate.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Allusion was made when the ombudsman was here to his having to go through the Access to Information Act to get certain information. Is that correct? And wouldn't the information he could get through this freedom of information process be afforded to him anyway?

[Keith Hillier]

I can't speak for the ombudsman. All I can tell you is that I'm not aware of any information that he or his staff has ever been refused, with the exception of items that are cabinet confidences or matters of solicitor-client privilege. From my standpoint, if he is being refused information or access, it would be news to me.

If he wants to go through access to information, that would be his choice; I can't comment on that. But I can tell you that as a GIC, he and his employees, who are employees of the Government of Canada and have the same security clearance as all our employees, have access to client files, paper and electronic. They have access to our policies: our policy manual, our policy suite, and our online databases. It's all there.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Okay.

In the reporting procedure by which he reports to the minister, do the reports go through any management before they get to the minister? Are they changed or altered in that process, or is the report that goes to the minister the same report that we will see published?

[Keith Hillier]

The relationship between the ombudsman and the minister is very clear. He gives a report to the minister. I or other officials do not see it. It goes to the minister. Then it will be published. The officials of the department are not involved with vetting, nor are we involved with saying “that shouldn't be in the report” or those sorts of things.

I have to tell you, though, and going back to another honourable member's question, that I want to make sure we're not mixing up apples and oranges, because there are what one might call reports, or papers, that he puts out and that don't go to the minister. He may eventually send them to the minister, but he will send to the department observations that he feels are concerns in certain areas and we will respond to those. Whether he then decides to take it to the minister is his prerogative. We have no intervention between him and the minister. The discussions he has are between him and the minister. He is outside. He is independent of the management of the department.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

So what--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I'm sorry, but you're well over your time.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Time goes so quickly when you're having fun.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Hillier.

Mr. Lobb, for five minutes.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Hillier, I would like to thank you again for the hospitality you extended to us in Charlottetown last week. It was very educational, so I do thank you and your staff for that.

I just want to clarify a couple of points that Mr. Stoffer made. I'm sure that Mr. Harris has briefed Mr. Stoffer on the last meeting's turn of events and the subsequent notes from that.

On the ombudsman's report, the ombudsman made it clear during his testimony that his report has yet to be completed. I just wonder if you agree with that.

[Keith Hillier]

I know what I read in the transcripts here, and if he has not completed his report, then I take it he hasn't completed his report.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Yes, I would agree with that, thus making it difficult for the minister to react to any of the findings in the report.

On staffing, I also remember the ombudsman mentioning that on staffing he has a full complement now. I think that's what he referred to in his testimony. So as far as his staffing is concerned, it looks to me like that's moving along quite well.

The other one, too, was about the backlog. Just to clarify a few things on what he did say, just for the record, it was that of the 6,000, “many...who come to our office are just seeking information or referrals”, so a lot of these are not deep and time-consuming investigations. Although the number may indicate a potentially huge amount of work, what he would respond to is very minimal. He also mentioned streamlining his processes, finding his staff's working abilities, and getting them trained, so hopefully the member was not criticizing the ombudsman, because obviously he's trying to get his office ramped up and is doing the best job he can.

Further to that, again, he also mentioned that with the exception of a couple of issues, instances such as the homelessness issue, there's actually a pretty decent working relationship between the department and the ombudsman's department. It really appeared to me from his testimony that there is actually a pretty decent working relationship taking place there. Would you agree or disagree?

[Keith Hillier]

I would agree.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Good. That's great to hear.

Just further on the issue of homelessness, which is an issue I obviously am passionate about, I believe what you said here, which is that it's one pebble on the beach really, on this issue. One thing I was very impressed with on our visit was the multitude of services you offer them, especially around mental health, addiction, and financial counselling. Could you expand a little on that just to give the committee a better idea of it for those who weren't in Charlottetown?

[Keith Hillier]

I think the first thing is that it's really important to make a connection with the veterans and try to establish a relationship based on trust, so when we say we have these programs and services, we are there to help veterans. Sadly, some of the people we're dealing with are in very desperate situations, where maybe they don't trust anybody in the world. So you have to take time to nurture that particular relationship and then talk about peer support.

We can get them into a peer support program. We can work to get them into our operational stress injury clinics we have across the country with our colleagues at DND. It's an integrated network of clinics, and of course we have things such as vocational rehab, psychosocial rehab--it's all a continuum. We have a job placement program. Just to make a point, to go into a homeless shelter this afternoon and say I'm from Veterans Affairs and I can help you write a résumé is probably somewhere down the road. The afternoon issue may be just trying to create a relationship so the person will feel comfortable.

Through the programs of the new Veterans Charter, we do have things such as disability amounts and what have you. So there are things we can do for people. I think one thing we need to understand is that as we go through these issues of veterans on the street, I would argue we do not have as many in Canada as there are elsewhere, on a percentage basis, because we have a much better social safety net, in my view, than some other countries. In the U.S. they have 27 million veterans. If you look at this on a percentage basis, I think it's fair to say, and I say it in a non-political sense, that across the U.S. the social safety nets tend to vary from state to state. So there is probably a greater risk of some of their veterans falling through the cracks, because quite simply they don't have some of the programs we have in Canada for our veterans.

The key is making contact, establishing a trust relationship, and then starting to branch out into the programs that, in the view of our professional caseworkers, our workers in the occupational stress injury clinics, are appropriate to the veteran's state of mind and ability to cope with some new program or some new services.