:
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
We have Mr. Hillier before us today, and I'll go into that in a bit.
To give everybody a heads up, I did want to note that on Monday we have Brian Ferguson, the assistant deputy minister; Verna Bruce, the acting deputy minister; and possibly Ken Miller, for the beginning of our study on the bill of rights.
Today we're wrapping up with regard to the veterans ombudsman. You're our last witness, sir.
The way we will proceed is for you to have 10 or 20 minutes, as you see fit, then afterward we go with questions.
Mr. Hillier, the floor is yours.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon.
[Translation]
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon.
[English]
I'm here today to clarify comments that were attributed to me with regard to the timeframes required to establish a veterans ombudsman through legislation.
In the spring, I met with veterans organizations bilaterally, including the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association, of which Tom Hoppe is the national president and Larry Gollner is the chair of the Bill C-45 implementation committee. I have been involved in consultations with veterans organizations recently, including the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association, at which time Mr. Hoppe and Mr. Gollner were in attendance.
During the spring meetings, potential timeframes to establish an ombudsman were discussed in general terms. Discussion included the understanding that creating an ombudsman through legislation would undoubtedly take longer than, for example, establishing an ombudsman through other means, such as a ministerial directive.
No explicit timeframes were stated for any potential options. At no point through these discussions did I indicate that the creation of a veterans ombudsman via legislation would take five years.
[Translation]
At no point throughout these discussions did I indicate that the creation of a veterans' ombudsman via legislation would take five years.
[English]
In fact, the actual time to create an ombudsman for veterans via legislation is strictly a matter governed by parliamentary rules and procedure and would be entirely subject to the will of Parliament. I have no influence in these matters, and as you can appreciate, if my comments have been interpreted to mean that it would take five years to establish an ombudsman through legislation, it has been a misunderstanding, for which I apologize and am here today to clarify.
I thank you for this opportunity to provide clarification in this matter, and I welcome your questions and your comments.
:
I have actually no idea where this idea of five years would come from. For example, if you look at the Veterans Charter, that was implemented in somewhat less than five years.
From my perspective, when we had some discussions—and actually the most recent discussions I had with this particular organization did not have any discussion of timeframes—when we talked about this back in late spring or early summer, we said if we go through a legislative process it's probably going to take a longer than a ministerial directive. But certainly five years was never ever discussed in any meeting that I've been present at, so I really don't know where it came from. I'm at a loss.
If in fact there's some misunderstanding, I'm sure that in the future I'll be speaking with these individuals. These are certainly honourable gentlemen, and as we move forward, I'm sure I will have further consultation with these gentlemen and if there's any misunderstanding it will certainly be clarified. But I don't know where the five years would come from.
It seems to me that it's really left to the will of Parliament. If it is the will of Parliament to proceed with the enactment of any legislation, I would suspect that honourable members would probably want to move more quickly than five years.
:
What he said is that you discussed this during this meeting. Let us forget about this.
Let us try to find out how much time it would take to create an ombudsman position.
Back in 1968, during Expo '67, the premier of the Quebec nation met the New Zealand ombudsman. The Quebec nation ombudsman, called the protecteur du citoyen, existed then and was operational.
My question to all those around this table is this: How come it is so long to find a suitable model, when we have so many good ones in this country? Ontario did not follow exactly the Quebec model, but it changed it, and New Brunswick and Alberta did the same thing.
We have in this country ombudsman offices that work fine. We have the expertise. I challenge all those around this table to work hard together to create a veterans' ombudsman. But we will have to stop hesitating and find the will to create it.
We should try to stop scrutinizing documents and discuss endlessly like we have been doing since 1962, when the suggestion to have a general ombudsman was first discussed. Do we really want to create this position or is this just political idle talk? You should respond and we should get on with it and establish this position rapidly.
Thank you, that is all I had to say, Mr. Chair.
:
I know I am a passionate kind of man who wants to get things moving. I have the feeling the main problem is with the veterans affairs department. It is as if people in the government perceived the ombudsman like an enemy that is out to make trouble and blow the whistle. That is not what this position is all about.
An ombudsman's role is to make sure the veterans get a good service and to contribute to better policies. He or she makes recommendations. An ombudsman cannot say we should pass a piece of legislation or change some program or other. He or she just makes recommendations. We heard last week that the ombudsman in New Zealand made 51 recommendations, and that 49 of them were implemented and the other two were discarded.
The role of an ombudsman is not to turn everything upside down in the government and departments, but to protect the citizens and to make recommendations on whatever is not working well.
One of the things that comes to mind which does not work well is the much talked about Veterans Review and Appeal Board. Some order needs to be restored in this board. I would like to know how Mr. Munro, a former president of the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association, was appointed to this board. Was this a political appointment, or was a competitive process followed? I am really wondering.
How could the former political assistant to Mr. Assad, the former member for Gatineau, be appointed to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, even if this member did not try to be re-elected? I can give more examples of appointments to the board that seem to be political appointments.
We travelled to the veterans hospital in Ste. Anne de Bellevue. I can tell you the ombudsman there seemed to be more a member of the management team of the institution than a person whose mandate is to care for the patients, who are veterans.
:
Thank you for coming and clarifying a few issues.
I just have a comment or two for my very passionate friend from the Bloc. I'd like to make it clear that this government is actually determined to put an ombudsman in place and a bill or rights in place because we feel those have been lacking for a long time.
I also recognize that sometimes democracy is awkward and takes a little bit of time, but if you're going to do it right, you actually need to talk to the user groups who are going to be the most affected by this. We'll be in a position fairly soon to move forward quickly, and I was very pleased not to hear you state today that it would take five years, because that seems completely unreasonable to any thinking person.
There are a number of countries that have an ombudsman and a bill of rights for veterans in place. We had a visitor here last week from Australia who gave us a bit of an explanation on Australia. Could you talk a little bit about any of the other countries that you're aware of that have an ombudsman in place and how they went about developing the structure?
:
You talked about Australia. Actually, the British model is very similar. They have an ombudsman for all of government. We looked a little bit to the U.S., but their whole system is so much different. They have something called the GI Bill of Rights--please don't quote me on the number--and I remember seeing the document, and it's about this thick. It's quite a lengthy document.
Mr. Chair, if I may, with regard to the bill of rights, one of the things I can tell you that veterans organizations have told me is that they don't want something that's this thick. They want something that's simple and understandable. In the words of one of the individuals I consulted with, you have to come up with something that a soldier can understand.
Many governments--and I can go to my notes there--have ombudsman models. They all tend to be a little bit different. They tend to be, if I could use the term, home grown to suit the culture and the size of government of the population they're trying to serve.
There are a few fundamental principles that we've seen. First of all, ombudsmen do not interfere in the normal decision-making process. They're not part of a legal system. They are there, in many ways, to recommend, to look at systemic.... Sometimes what you find is that everybody has done the right thing, but maybe the outcome hasn't been the right outcome. They're involved in recommending.
In terms of the models, in some cases they report to Parliament at large, and in some cases they report to a minister. In fact, interestingly enough, in the U.S., if I could use that model, there are some cities and states that actually have ombudspersons for veterans issues. I think if you look at them you'll see that they all have the same basic principles of being able to review cases, review systemic issues, and make recommendations for improvements on a general basis or make suggestions relevant to a specific case. But they have no authority to overturn a decision that has gone through due process.
Also, the other principle, generally, is that in order for an ombudsman to take a case, the normal redress mechanisms, the normal responses through a department, whether it be through an administrative appeal or some other appeal mechanism, would normally have to be exhausted before such time as an ombudsman would launch an investigation, unless there were some very exceptional circumstances.
:
First of all, once an ombudsman is put in place, that person would have to decide on the make-up of their team. My understanding is that at DND it took them about a year, I think, from the time that an ombudsman was actually named until they actually got in business. I believe it was up to a year. Please don't quote me on that, but I understand that was the general timeframe. Having said that, the types of things that have to be done, in my view, are the following.
The ombudsman has to be able to staff jobs. That has to be done through the public service using public service staffing rules. There may be some need for contract employees, and that would have to follow Government of Canada procurement policies. Staffing and procurement are not things that happen overnight. So that is one of the things.
There would have to be a decision on the location of the ombudsman, the physical infrastructure. The ombudsman is going to need office space, computer hookups, and what have you.
Also, the ombudsman, whoever is appointed, really needs to think about what the mix of the team is. He or she would need people, in my view-and having talked to various ombudspersons around town, a variety of people would be needed—people with a legal background, people with a background in administrative investigations, etc.
I think the other thing, too, that would have to be put in place is processes and procedures in terms of dealing with the department. In fact most ombudsman models—I think Mr. Winzenberg stressed this when he was here on Monday—try to do it at the lowest level, try to do it fast. Every case doesn't have to be brought to the attention of the deputy minister or the ombudsman. Hopefully, people working in the ombudsman's office can resolve issues on a bilateral basis with a program officer or an area counsellor or what have you.
So there would have to be some of these administrative processes, but certainly from the standpoint of the department, we are quite capable and quite willing and able to support the ombudsman in terms of helping set up the administration. As for how that would happen, at the end of the day, we would have to wait and see.
:
What you touch on is something that's very challenging. The question is, how many people are going to come forward and request the service of the ombudsman?
Of course, we've looked at the Australian model, as was discussed here on Monday. Mr. Winzenberg is working with us on this particular file. I've met a number of times with Monsieur Côté, and he has outlined to me some of the volumetrics that his office has—the number of staff, the number of complaints.
At the end of the day, the person who is appointed, the ombudsman, will have to use what I would call best professional judgment. It's a matter of making sure you have sufficient staff to be able to deal with the intake, because if somebody goes to the ombudsman, and if, for example, they're complaining about slow response time or delay and the ombudsman is no better at responding, the credibility and faith in the system is going to be lost extremely quickly. But by the same token, you don't want to go overboard and staff up an organization with so many people that all of a sudden you don't have sufficient....
My recommendation would be to start with a core group and allow for capability to expand or contract based on the needs. I think it's probably fair to say that maybe in the first year there might be larger numbers of inquiries than maybe there would be so many years out, because of the attention that it will probably attract. Certainly from speaking with veterans organizations, I think there are people out there, undoubtedly, who will pursue the services of the ombudsman.
:
From my standpoint, I don't recall whether the question was asked. I'd defer to the transcript. If it had been asked to me, I would have said yes. I think I would respond by saying that if I didn't believe in this, I wouldn't have taken this assignment.
Specifically the reason this assignment was given to me as the corporate ADM is due to the fact that I have very little involvement with veterans programs. I'm not responsible for the policies, the programs, the service delivery of any of the programs. And certainly I have, in my view, a greater degree of independence because of the fact that I'm not accountable for the actual delivery of services to veterans.
However, I am part of the overall management team, undoubtedly. Certainly I would not have taken this assignment.... If I may say so, Mr. Chair, I'll have been with the government for 35 years in January coming and have worked in a variety of departments in a variety of cities. Any assignment I've taken in the past and will take in the future will be for things I believe in and things in which I think I can make a difference.
I have a couple of comments, and maybe I'll end up with a question.
I think it's really clear that this committee and this government wanted to move ahead with an ombudsman. You've cleared the road in terms of some of the questions that have come about in terms of the department, in terms of resistance, and in fact the endorsement of an ombudsman by your department. I think that's a great step.
Then I think it's up to us. We have met with a number of witnesses who have given us a variety of comments that have drawn us somewhat down the funnel of understanding what an ombudsman will do and can do, and some of the make-up.
I guess what I'm looking for is this. We do not want to short-cut the options that we have to look at. We have one chance to do it right; we should do it right the first time and not have to come back and redo a lot of things. I think we all recognize that nothing is ever cast in stone, and that there has to be some life to everything we do in terms of changing times as things go on, and we have witnessed that from what we call our traditional veterans to our modern-day veterans. So we must have something that's flexible in terms of what an ombudsman is going to be able to deal with.
I think this committee now has an obligation to make some decisions. We are the parliamentarians. We are the ones who have been gathering this information from a number of people. We will make the decisions, and the minister and the deputy ministers and the administration will carry out and get the resources to put it together.
I guess what I'm looking for now, so that we can move ahead--and I believe we can, because if it slows up, we will be the ones slowing it up. I mean, following parliamentary process, which is a drag at the best of times...but unless we get in the way of it, it will still be possible to move things along. So I think it will be the willingness of this committee to move along.
In listening to our witness, Mr. Hillier, about where it's going to be, where the staffing is, what is going to be required in it, what input do we want as a committee, I think we have to be clear to our department about what we want our input to be, so they can give the options to us.
I'm not going to pick sides on this thing. We're all here for the one objective, and that is to get an ombudsman in place. I think that's been clearly laid out and talked about by everyone, and I think everybody's on side for that.
Mr. Chairman, my question, then, is focused around what is the next step so that we can move ahead, clearly defined by this committee. Have we all the information we want? If we don't, now is the time to ask. I don't think it's fair to any ministry staff for us to send them out and then not give clear direction, because we're the ones who carry that responsibility.
To move to our next meeting and to our next step, then, maybe as a committee, after our witness leaves, we need to sit down and give some clear direction today about what our next step is. We need to move ahead and not become the obstacle, so that it doesn't take five years.
That's all I have to say. Thank you.
:
No. Certainly what I read in the testimony was that the views were fairly divergent, I think it's fair to say, and some were very passionate. But I think at the end of the day we have to boil it down and say what makes sense and what is doable. You could probably pick some things from each of the presentations that were given here; there were some commonalities, but there were some other things that were fairly divergent. You have to really think about it in the Canadian context and say we want a made-in-Canada solution that is for our veterans.
For example, just to quote Mr. Winzenberg on Monday, he talked about the fact that the ombudsman was created in Australia many years ago. He talked about the size of the population, for example. They made the decision that based on the size of their country, the size of the population, that they didn't want to go with multi-ombudspersons.
That's a decision that the Government of Canada will have to make here, whether they go with multi-ombudspersons; i.e., someone for Veterans Affairs and DND. And there are a number of others around town that you're probably aware of. It has to be something that's going to work for Canada, but more importantly, at the end of the day, that's going to work for veterans and give them the type of representation that they deserve and that they feel will work for them.
:
We are a department of 4,000 people. For me to sit here today and say that every one of the 4,000 people are out as cheerleaders of this I think would be an overstatement.
I've been around the organization now for about 12 years so I know most of the players, if I could put it in that sense. I think there is good support for it. I think we're at the point where people are trying to say, before I can say this is a good thing, show me what it is.
In terms of the concept, I've worked in a number of departments of government, I've worked in a number of cities, and I've never seen a group of employees more passionate, more caring, and more focused on their clients. That's not to take away from any of the other organizations I've worked with in the Government of Canada. But I encourage you to meet some of the employees of Veterans Affairs Canada, the front-line people, the pension adjudicators, the case workers. I assure you that you won't find a more dedicated group of people, a more compassionate group of people, anywhere in the Government of Canada, and I've been a few places in my career.
:
My sense is that, as I responded earlier, this is going to be a bit of the trick of trying to use the best professional judgment. If you look at Australia, though, I believe they established their ombudsman around the mid-1970s. My sense is that there's probably been some levelling off there.
The way that I would probably see this or the way that government programs normally work, whether they be an ombudsman or another service, is that when there's a new service there's usually a higher level of interest. Even if they're not real complaints, people are calling and saying, “I've heard there's an ombudsman, and I'm calling to find out how I go about making a complaint. Or do I even have something that you would be prepared to look at?”
So I think what we have to be prepared to do is make sure we have enough people to do not just investigations--or we could call them, as referred to earlier, forensic investigations--but also sufficient people to be able to say, “This is the office of the ombudsman. Can I help you?” Undoubtedly there will be an initial surge in interest, and I think it's very important that the ombudsman have sufficient resources to be able to respond to the surge that I believe will take place.
:
I can answer a question that Mr. St. Denis asked. I'll try to make it as clear as I possibly can.
We as a government made it clear that we were going to put an ombudsman and a bill of rights in place. The decision from the minister was that if we were going to do this and have the cooperation of the House of Commons, then it needed to be dealt with at the committee level. We needed to give the committee the right to make recommendations as to how this was going to proceed.
So that's what this is all about--listening to all of these different witnesses and listening to all of these different veterans groups so that we can come together as a committee and make a recommendation that the minister's going to consider.
I don't think there's a person in this room who hasn't had a heartbreaking experience with a veteran in their own riding. I've been part of this portfolio for more than three years, and I have heard some things that I can't believe are actually happening to people who fought for this country. So I would like to make certain that when we do it, we do it right.
I know that the charter was a well-meaning piece of legislation put forward by the previous government. I think it was done fairly well, but there were flaws in there that needed to be addressed before it ever went in. It is a living document, fortunately, so we're able to change those things as we go along. But I'd like to try to avoid those kinds of pitfalls when we put this position together.
I'd love to have nothing but time so that we could look at every single model all around the world, but that's simply not possible. We're going to have to look at what we've had in front of us. We're going to have to assess what the witnesses have told us, make the best decision we can possibly make as a group of people, and put that recommendation forward. Hopefully we're going to have, in very short order, an ombudsman position in place and a bill of rights position in place.
These are things that can't be ignored. They've been needed for a long time. We're going to move forward on them, preferably with the committee's consent and with input from the committee. We have passion from Mr. Perron, we have passion from a number of members sitting directly across from me from the Liberal Party, we have passion from the Conservative Party, and we certainly have passion from the NDP. Surely we can make this happen and make this work.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Hillier. Now I'm going to say thank you for appearing, and at this stage you're free to do as you wish.
I'd like to take a bit of time here, based on the fact that I asked our researcher for a kind of schematic that we laid out for some of our witnesses, and also based on the comments of Mr. Shipley. I don't often do this. I'm usually pretty quiet in allowing everybody else to speak. But I would like to initiate a bit of a discussion in terms of what direction we'd like to provide our analyst over the Christmas break for his drafting of the report. I'd like to just briefly discuss a few of those things.
I'm going to lay out on the table what I would like to see in terms of an ombudsman, and then if it opens up discussion for others in terms of what you wish to add, feel free.
We have three options in terms of appointment: by Governor in Council, by Governor in Council after a review of candidates by Parliament, and by the . I would probably choose number two, just in the sense that I believe that for just about any appointment, it never hurts to have a parliamentary committee able to examine these people, ask questions of them, and see if they have what it takes to do the job--and to satisfy us, to make sure they're well qualified for the position. I don't think that ever hurts.
Number two, on accountability, the options are to report to Parliament, report to Parliament with review by the standing committee, report to Parliament through the minister, or report to the minister. I think I prefer reporting to Parliament with review by the standing committee. The way I see it working would be kind of like what happens with the Auditor General, where they have an opportunity at least once a year to go ahead--
Please bear with me, Mr. Perron.
:
Okay, understood. I just want to be able to go through this and then kick it wide open, and then people can say what they wish. We do have time. The committee doesn't officially wrap up until 5:30. We have the room anyhow, so I thought we'd also get this out there.
I like the idea of their having at least a yearly opportunity to come and speak to the committee when they table their report, and have media there, have something that's televised and everything else so that everybody can hear what they have to say, because I think that's their great hammer, if you will. That's what the Auditor General has. Once a year or whatever, she can come and give her presentation and everything else.
In terms of the term of office, I think it should be potentially renewable if they've done a good job. We have options of five years renewable; five years, one term only; six years renewable; six years, one term only. I prefer something that's renewable. Five years is a shorter timeframe than six and probably allows us, as a parliamentary committee, or the government or whatever to actually have a quicker turnaround if somebody is a problem.
In terms of the mandate, I take into account what Mr. Hillier just said, which is to keep it short and simple and something a soldier can understand. I like number one, “Review of all issues pertaining to care, support, and compensation for veterans,” just because it's shorter and simpler and has fewer caveats on it and, I think, is more open.
In terms of a review of mandate, I think that every five years is fine, and number three is the option there, “Every five years by Parliament through Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs”. I don't see any reason, if indeed we're the ones drafting the report and recommending how it should be set up, that it can't be this committee that reviews the mandate of it.
As for access to documents and departmental officials, there are three options there: number one is full access; two is “full access after completion of...” blah, blah, blah; three is “limited access.” Based on the testimony of Mr. Marin, I would prefer “full access on demand”, because if you're going to want to have them do the job, they might as well have the tools necessary to do the job.
When it comes to contact with the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the first option is “only upon tabling of the report”; number two is “to inform the minister prior to the tabling of the report”; number three is “to consult with the minister”. I personally like the idea of informing the minister prior to the tabling of the report. The way I would see that working is this. Let's say, for example, you set the date at April 1 or something like that, when they made the report to the committee. Therefore it would be sometime in mid-March, I would think, when they could privately inform the minister and let him know some of the concerns they had, what they'd probably be raising in their report to the standing committee. That way, the minister and his office would have a couple of weeks to, hopefully, try to fix some of those things or at least have a heads up on what's coming down the pipe. I think that just makes for better government.
In terms of the question of costs, this one here has three options: “funding allocated by Parliament to an officer of Parliament”; “funding allocated within the Veterans Affairs portfolio”; “funding provided from the budget of the Department of Veterans Affairs”. As far as this one goes, I wonder how the Auditor General is structured. I'm not sure off the top of my head how the AG.... Is it number one? is indicating number one. I see other little fingers stabbing in the air. I'll take that to be the case, then. It feels like I'm playing “Who Want to Be a Millionaire?” and phoning friends on the lifeline. Well, if that's the case, if the Auditor General is structured that way, it would make sense to me.
In terms of the amount of the budget, I honestly don't know. I think we do have to worry when we're first setting this up. I always have this concern about government, that we give something too much, because I've seen around this place in my 10 years that governments spend a lot of money. And it's far better left in the taxpayers' pocket. But I would suggest that in five years' time we can review the mandate of this thing, and if necessary increase it.
We had numbers tossed around here even today about whether it's going to be 17,000 cases or 200 cases. How many is it going to be? I would say that at first you start off with a smaller budget, and then if circumstance requires, review the mandate and what not, to increase that, and so be it. As far as staffing goes, I would generally say the same. We should probably tend towards the lean at first and then, if merit shows it to be necessary, increase that later on.
I think they should have the ability to address systemic issues. It makes sense to me, because if you have a multiplicity of things happening and it makes sense to deal with it in a holus-bolus manner, then that's probably the way to do it.
In terms of the timeframe, Mr. Stoffer raised that question. I would say, once again, don't restrict them in terms of their ability to do the job. If they think they need to look back at issues prior, then let them do so.
Those are my thoughts, for whatever it's worth. I've kicked it out there for our analyst to do with as he wishes.
I don't know if others wish to add.
Monsieur Perron, Mr. Stoffer, and then Mr. Valley.
:
Mr. Chair, I agree with what Bev said earlier. We should sit and talk, and be serious about it.
I for one would like to participate in this process, but I do not want a model that would be similar to the one of the national defence and Canadian forces ombudsman.
After the problems national defence had in Somalia, it was decided to appoint an ombudsman, Mr. André Marin, to appease the Canadian citizens and the military. Back then, and even today, it was never considered that the approval of the House and elected representatives of the people should be sought through a bill, because it was simply a departmental initiative.
Am I right, Mr. Rossignol?
I have to ask. I've only seen a couple of reports--I've only been around here a couple of years--but I thought that's what this was. This is what's coming to us in the report, though.
I understood that when we come back, we are going to have it in our hands for roughly two weeks or 10 days before we get out so that we could study it, and it would tell us why there is one, two, three, and we have to pick. By then we should be informed about it.
Some of them are easy--maybe we don't have to make a big decision about the term of office--but I want to know about the accountability report to Parliament and who said that. I thought it would be in the report.
Those are the two I've seen before. There will be four options, and it'll say who said to report to Parliament. For number two, it'll say who said that. Is that not what we're looking at when we come back?
:
I appreciate that the chair is trying to be helpful and get us talking in order to give some guidance to Michel.
When I look at this list, let's assume for the moment that it's exhaustive. There may be some other things, but I think Michel's draft here is a good working document. When you look at all of this, we're probably going to arm-wrestle only over the second area, which is accountability, and the second last one, which is contact with the Minister of Veterans Affairs. We're going to really have to work on those, I think.
On the first appointment of the veterans ombudsman, I personally agree with you on number two.
Let me skip accountability.
Concerning term of office, I think you said number one. Did you? Yes. Personally, I have no problem with that.
On mandate, did you say number two? You said number one. Well, okay. To me it's certainly not three, and Mr. Marin, the former DND ombudsman, certainly felt that the veterans ombudsman should have some ability, not to interfere with cases, but to be able to look at systemic issues within the review process. To me, one and two are simply nuances. There's not much of a difference between them.
On review of mandate, I think you said number two. Was it three? Well, there is no problem there.
Regarding access to documents, I think I agree with you on number one.
As for contact with the minister, that's one on which we'll have to maybe arm-wrestle a bit.
As for end costs, he or she has to have a budget. I don't think it really matters; I agree with Peter that the independence has to be there.
I would be concerned with the accountability one--the second one--and the second last one, the contact with the minister. My only concern is that we set this up so that the veterans get the service they need. If it speeds things up for the ombudsman to have some kind of well-understood, proper relationship with the minister's office--transparent, if that's a better word--for the purpose of serving the veterans, then I think we need to look at that anyway.
I appreciate what you're doing, Mr. Chair. I think we need to begin this process and then winnow down to the areas in which we have to do some arm wrestling, and get over the easy stuff.
:
Maybe we are moving ahead on it. I think the issues list needs to be developed with some background on it based on what we've heard and all of ours, so we aren't just cherry-picking some issues here. I think the researchers can provide us with some of those options to look at, maybe in a little more comprehensive a way than what we have right here, and list the issues.
The other one I'm not sure about is who determines the location. When I say “issues list”, I think we need to be pretty comprehensive about those things we go through, to make sure we've hit all of them, that take us to the implementation process, to that gate. Then I'm not sure what happens at that gate.
Maybe somebody can help me. Once we go through this and present our report, do we have a say in the implementation at all in terms of the number of people? I think then we turn it over to the administration and say, we think now you need to come to us with a report on the implementation process of it. I'm not so sure why they can't dovetail, so that we are not doing one and then waiting to do the other.
I really think that if we wanted to actually move ahead as a committee, we could follow through with the researchers on this early part of it, from the issues and options list that we can go down, and then at the same time we can have the ministry prepare how they see the implementation. They give us a document based on how they see the implementation and costing. They're the ones who are going to give us the budget, as mentioned by Brent.
Do they have recommendations of where, too? I don't think we should just be cherry-picking on personal venues of where it should go. I think we should have some background from veterans and actual research that tells us where it should go. Some of those things need to come in terms of that implementation.
I don't know. I'd ask, Mr. Chairman, for the committee's comments on that.
:
That's okay, not a problem.
I listened very carefully to the comments that have been made, and I think I'm probably closest to being on the same page with Roger and Bev. One of the things I find interesting, being the only woman on this committee, is that sometimes women think a little differently from men. I have an opinion, obviously. What woman doesn't have an opinion? In terms of what we're looking at here for options, I don't think my opinion really matters that much. I think the opinion that matters is the opinion of the veterans groups and the individuals we've had here as witnesses. We're supposed to be taking a look at the consensus that the opinions from those witnesses outlined.
My opinion, which I have obviously, doesn't really matter. But I want to be able to take the information that's in front of us on this sheet and I want to be able to answer this based on what the majority of the witnesses who came in front of us feel and not what I feel, never having been a veteran. When I'm talking about agreeing with Mr. Valley, that's what I'm referring to.
I'll take a step back. I have a seven-year-old car. My husband is getting ready to buy a new one and he drives me crazy. Every time I turn around he's giving me statistics. What he's ended up doing is putting a spreadsheet together, and exactly as I mentioned earlier, there are Xs in all the boxes on the features that he wants. What I'd like to see, with what we have in front of us as information, is a spreadsheet that says this group and that group all agreed they want this; this and that group all agreed they didn't want this. Then we have a spreadsheet that has all of the questions in front of us answered from all of the witnesses who have come forward.
It isn't about what I think, or what Mr. Valley thinks, or Mr. Perron thinks; it's about what these groups of witnesses who are involved in the organizations we're supposed to be serving think.
I know Christmas is coming, but I'm asking Michel to put together some kind of spreadsheet, like the car thing, that has Xs in the boxes, so that I can read it at a glance and know what the features are that veterans wanted the most.
:
I can't believe she left. I can't wait to get the transcript. I'm sure I heard her say that her opinion didn't matter.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Roger Valley: Very quickly, I want to make one point. I'm sorry if I didn't catch this right, and I don't mean to say anybody said this, but this is the committee's report. We make a report and Veterans Affairs will look at it afterwards. We don't want them telling us what to put in our report. I don't mean to put those words in anybody's mouth, but we have to be very strong on that if we want to get to what David said. This is our report. They'll come and tell us what the problems are afterwards. That's what they get paid to do.
We can do it very quickly. If we all get our homework done and Michel gets it to us, we can make some of these decisions very quickly. As I said, there's no hill to die on here. The department will tell us their problems, but we want to stay clear. This has to be the committee's if we're going to get it unanimous.