I'll start with my opening remarks, and I apologize that they're not translated. They've been given to the clerk, and he will translate them as you go forward.
Mr. Chair, respected committee members, I want to thank you for inviting us here to speak today. I am Tom Hoppe, the national president of the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association, CPVA, and with me is Larry Gollner, who is our past vice-president and who leads our special projects team. Larry has been involved in the development of the new Veterans Charter and the early development work done on both the veterans bill of rights and the veterans ombudsman function.
In June, I had the opportunity, as an individual, to have a small part in a presentation to this committee. Today Mr. Gollner and I are here not as individuals, but to represent our association, other Canadian veterans, and, in principle, serving Canadian Forces members.
For the past 14 years CPVA has been actively involved in the veterans community. We have a solid history of working cooperatively and supportively with the government and the Department of Veterans Affairs to improve the conditions for all veterans, young and old. We also have a strong reputation for doing our homework, and on occasion challenging Veterans Affairs. Our challenges are constructive in nature and are usually done within the confines of the consultation process.
Our successes are well documented. CPVA has assisted in developing the veterans helpline, aided in paving the way for OSISS and in securing Parliament's approval of the Canadian Peacekeeping Service Medal, and has worked with the University of Victoria law faculty to provide well-researched information to facilitate the development of sections of the new Veterans Charter.
CPVA consistently focuses on suitably representing the interests of both traditional and modern-day veterans. Our association was successful in recruiting two serving members to join our board of directors. This allows us to better understand the demands of the modern veteran community. We also have well-established relations with a number of regimental associations. These relationships lend us credibility and the ability to provide current advice to Veterans Affairs on the needs of both our veterans and our serving members.
Why is this important to the committee? The information we provide today is based on years of working within the veterans community in collaboration with other related organizations and on having an intimate understanding for the current needs of the veterans and serving members.
One question we are constantly asked is why a veterans ombudsman is important to veterans. Presently, the more than half a million veterans are represented by a number of associations and organizations, all of which concentrate their efforts to best suit the needs of their members. For example, there are organizations that serve the veterans of world wars and others that serve veterans of UN peacekeeping and peacemaking missions. Some of these focus on period of service or activities; others focus their efforts on the social well-being of their members. Due to this dynamic, the overall veterans community does not have one voice. Although some would have us believe that they have the authority to speak for us all, they do not have such authority.
Why are the internal struggles or politics of the veterans community important to this committee? It is essential that you understand that the veterans organizations have a major impact on how veterans legislation is developed. I am sure that Veterans Affairs has told you that the development of the new Veterans Charter had input from and the support of all veterans organizations. In our experience, this was not the case. The truth is that veterans associations, while active in the development process, did not have the time, resources, or permission to consult with their membership on the critical changes being formulated on pension policy. Under the guise of cabinet confidentiality, Veterans Affairs imposed a gag order on a dozen or so veterans representing their organizations, effectively eliminating any meaningful and democratic discussion within the veterans community at the grassroots level.
After the passage of the new Veterans Charter, considerable consultation was done on formulating the regulations and policies, leading to April 6 of this year, when the new Veterans Charter was proclaimed. On April 6, the then Deputy Minister of Veterans Affairs, the late Jack Stagg, stated that the charter was about 80% complete but needed amendments. He also stated that he expected the work to progress quickly on both the veterans bill of rights and the ombudsman function.
Shortly thereafter, the Prime Minister echoed Mr. Stagg's statement. Since then, seven months have passed without meaningful consultation taking place. We have repeatedly volunteered to help and have considerable resources available to do so, but Veterans Affairs has responded with a polite “thanks, but no thanks”.
The much-proclaimed consultation process is clearly faltering.
In summary, the veterans community is split into numerous factions. The consultation process is faltering. The problem is compounded by the inconsistency of support by various veterans organizations, and as a result we have a confused overall veterans community.
How does this impact the Department of Veterans Affairs? Department officials too frequently state that an effective consultation process was in place during development of the legislation, regulations, and policies. In fact, not all associations were consulted, which has occurred more than once, and as a result, we feel senior department officials have lost the respect and trust of some of the veterans organizations. We have to understand the culture of members of the military services. They do not usually complain and will not work outside the chain of command. However, VAC is not only very bureaucratic, it is also legalistic in their process.
When a wounded soldier or veteran is faced with the inflexible system, he or she has nowhere to turn except to the media or the Federal Court. Who can effectively challenge a federal ministry? Most veterans or associations do not have the resources to do so effectively. Hence, when fundamental issues and important questions arise concerning veterans at large, we feel that only an ombudsman could effectively challenge a federal department.
How should the ombudsman office be structured? We believe that the DND-CF ombudsman operation and definition is a good model. The only difference is the veterans affairs ombudsman should be legislated. An ombudsman will provide an avenue to allow the veteran to have a place to turn to that can investigate why a policy or regulation is not working and provide a solution. A prime example would be the high amount of claim refusals due to the initial application process. Naturally, refusal of a veteran's claim results in a veteran not immediately receiving the services from VAC. As well, there is the concern of the duplication of SISIP and the new Veterans Charter rehabilitiation programs and how it will affect the transition of a serving member from the CF to VAC.
We do not see the veterans affairs ombudsman challenging a judicial decision made by VRAB, but an exception might be if there's a specific invitation to do so by the minister or the VRAB chairman. An example would be the investigation by the ombudsman of why the VRAB has such a large backlog of cases. However, some individual veterans may also feel they have been left out in the cold by having their cases rejected by the VRAB and they will undoubtedly return to the ombudsman seeking redress without going to the Federal Court. To help address this concern, we would see some practical options and approaches develop to ensure that such individuals receive the assistance they need to appeal their cases before the Federal Court system.
Members of Parliament and bureaucrats understand we need to support our veterans and serving members. However, we feel the establishment of the veterans affairs ombudsman is caught up in the bureaucratic process. The establishment of the DND-CF ombudsman has proven to be successful; therefore we are of the opinion the veterans deserve to have a place they can turn to for fair and equitable treatment.
In conclusion, it is essential to understand the connection between the veterans community and the development of policy and legislation. It is also important to understand the changing demographics within our veterans community, and which of the veterans groups involved truly represent all veterans. With these concerns in mind, the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association believes the establishment of a veterans ombudsman is a critically important element of the introduction of the new Veterans Charter.
The government of the day said the new Veterans Charter was major legislation that has the capacity to impact tens of thousands of serving members and veterans. Therefore, with an untested Veterans Charter and a growing number of wounded coming home from the Afghanistan mission and with the split within the veterans community, it is clear that having an ombudsman is absolutely in the best interest of our veterans as well as for Veterans Affairs.
Thank you for allowing us to make this presentation, Mr. Chair, and I invite your questions, with which we can offer more than just through the presentation.
We know the serving members are used to having an ombudsman in the Canadian armed forces, which has been very successful.
Don't get me wrong, the VAC staff are doing wonderful work and the best they can on the front lines, but sometimes veterans are caught, because of policy and the bureaucratic structure of VAC. They have a place to turn to in DND, but veterans have nowhere to go. As I've said, soldiers will work within the chain of command to the best of their ability, but there's a breaking point where they need to go somewhere. They have nowhere to go, so they go to the media.
A veterans affairs ombudsman is very crucial because it will allow veterans to go to the ombudsman and present a case that may be a systemic issue, such as the relationship between SISIP and the new Veterans Charter. It's a systemic issue.
The ombudsman could then look at it, resolve the issue, and make the department more effective. It will help the veterans. Yes, it is crucial to the veterans.
Larry, do you have anything to add?
:
To follow on Tom's comment, I would say we often hear from Veterans Affairs colleagues—and we call them “colleagues” because we've worked closely and cooperatively with them over the years—that we have the Veterans Review and Appeal Board and it can solve all the veterans' claims.
Well, the Canadian Forces have the redress of a grievance procedure. This is a formal legal procedure that has been established for generations.
With the establishment of the Canadian Forces ombudsman, the department didn't fall apart. It seems to be in business, and people still work through the redress of a grievance procedure. But if they're not satisfied, before going to Federal Court they have that different option and can go before the ombudsman.
The other thing is there are some things that the department would like the ombudsman to look at, because there's an interface between the Department of National Defence and Veterans Affairs.
From talking with my own regimental association, right now I know that if there is a difficulty with our wounded coming back from Afghanistan, it's a grey area between the two departments. It's not the lack of people trying and it's not necessarily the policy. The two departments aren't quite in sync yet.
It's compounded by the new Veterans Charter. The new Veterans Charter was implemented on April 1, and very shortly thereafter we started taking casualties.
Gentlemen, thanks again.
You also indicated that when someone in the defence department has a problem, they can go to the ombudsman. I remind you, they can also go to MPs, as well, just as veterans can, or the odd time, senators.
One of the concerns, though, that the defence ombudsman has is that he can only go back so far. Things that happened prior to that, he can't touch.
André Marin, in October 2003, did a report on SISIP that said thou shall change the particular rules. It's now November 2006, and it hasn't been done yet. We've had two elections and two different governments. The ombudsman very clearly stated a specific fact that had to be done, and it still hasn't been done. If you're on SISIP, imagine what you must think of an ombudsman, now. You've gone before him, you've gone before his people, you've stated your case, he's agreed with you, he's made recommendations to government, and two different governments haven't changed it yet.
So unless--and I'm not saying an ombudsman is ever going to get this--they can have the legislative tools to actually change policy, in many cases, it's an advisory function, a recommendation board. At the end of the day, if the government or the minister chooses to ignore a particular recommendation, they still have that legislative ability to do so.
Can you not still see in some cases the frustration from veterans in this regard?
:
Coming back to the question whether the ombudsman should be accountable, we just heard from Mr. Marin, the former National Defence and Veterans Affairs ombudsman. I think he did a superb job, so much so that he was told his contract wouldn't be renewed.
I really like nominating people because our meeting is public. We also heard from Mr. Leduc, who is the ombudsman at the Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue veterans hospital. I don't know whether my colleagues will agree with me, but it emerged from this meeting that Mr. Leduc was an employee of the hospital's executive director: he answered only what she wanted him to answer. She also protected her friend Mr. Leduc when he was asked questions.
We heard from Mr. Côté, who is the National Defence ombudsman. Personally, I wasn't satisfied with his performance because we could see that he had both hands tied and couldn't really react because of the system in place in the Canadian Forces. His bosses are the general of the Canadian Forces and the Minister of Defence. He's protecting his job. He doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds him.
I don't blame either Mr. Leduc or Mr. Côté for acting that way because they're protecting their professional lives. However, it would be wasting our time and taking the wrong direction to have a Veterans Affairs ombudsman who would take the side of his real boss, who is the minister, instead of that of veterans.
I'd like you to comment on what I've just said. If you want to refrain from doing so, I'll understand, because I know you're often in a poor position to answer that kind of question.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being here and helping us out with this very important project.
Before I go to my questions, your organization is the first one, to my knowledge, to mention the Cold War veterans. One of my constituents, Chuck Miles, has been very interested in there being proper commemoration of the Cold War veterans, many of them on the undercover side of it, and I will make him aware of your efforts.
The fact that we're spending a fair bit of time in hearing from witnesses such as yourselves on the ombudsman sort of suggests that it's a big, complicated thing, but in listening to Mr. Marin and Mr. Côté and others, there are some basic fundamental elements. It's really in the implementation and in the mechanisms, to listen to veterans where this will work or not work.
Do you agree that it's not rocket science, and if it's done right it's not something that takes...? I think even Mr. Gollner said it's a simple bill. Do you think we need to spend a lot more time studying this before we put something on the table?
I have just a quick question.
You talked about members of the military with problems who went to the DND ombudsman, and about how if we have an ombudsman now for veterans affairs, then veterans can go the ombudsman. But a classic example is the case of a veteran dying and the spouse being left behind. We'll take, for example, VIP. A particular individual in Cape Breton was assured by a certain person, who was an opposition leader and now just happens to be Prime Minister, that the VIP services would be done immediately. Now, ten months later, they haven't been done yet. So this person has a legitimate complaint, but she's a civilian, and she's the spouse of a veteran. In the perfect world we talked about, should civilian members attached to veterans have the right to use the ombudsman's services to launch concerns, complaints, or whatever it is that they have?
For example, this particular lady is applying for VIP services. Even though the legislation is absolutely correct that the government is not doing anything illegal--the legislation states this very clearly--she's not getting exactly what the legislation states. But if she feels that she has a valid concern, in your view, should she be able to use the services of an ombudsman, as well?