Honourable Chair and members, it is an honour for us to be here today to represent the Royal Canadian Legion and to offer our views on three matters related to veterans issues, namely the veterans bill of rights, the veterans ombudsman, and the veterans independence program. But before I deal with specifics I would like to address some fundamental principles.
Firstly, we would like to acknowledge the very important step taken by the current government to upgrade your committee to full standing committee status. Congratulations.
Our Canadian Forces members and veterans are special Canadians. They have risked their lives for the freedom that all Canadians enjoy on a daily basis. In recognizing their sacrifice Canadians should come to realize that no death is more important than another. As long as that death or that injury is linked to military service, and whether or not they served in World War II or in modern times, these heroic Canadians are all veterans who should receive the benefits they deserve.
Since the Korean War, more than 415 Canadian Forces personnel—sailors, soldiers, airmen and airwomen, regular force members, and reservists—have died for Canada. A very large number have suffered injuries. The Canadian Forces has only recently started keeping accurate track of deaths in operation and training. This is an essential requirement that will ensure that the 17 Canadian Forces members who recently died in Afghanistan and other Canadian military personnel will be suitably honoured in the seventh Book of Remembrance.
Since 1926, to help veterans and their families, the Legion has played a proactive advocacy role while also providing representational services to serving members, veterans, and dependants. We are proud of both of those roles and pursue them actively and constructively.
You've identified three priorities that are very important in the context of the new Veterans Charter, none more so than a veterans bill of rights. We posted a veterans bill of rights on our website in early March, 2006. That bill of rights states:
Canadian veterans, who have committed their lives and “service” for the freedoms Canadians enjoy today are special citizens. They deserve recognition, benefits and services to maintain an appropriate quality of life during all stages of their lives. Their special status should be recognized in all jurisdictions, federal, provincial and municipal.
Veterans have a right to be treated with courtesy, with respect and in a timely fashion in all their contacts with Veterans Affairs Canada at all levels of the Department. This respect, courtesy and timeliness of service must also be demonstrated to their families and dependants.
Veterans have a right to be fully informed of all programs and benefits to which they are eligible. In that respect, Veterans Affairs Canada has a responsibility to inform not only their current clients; it also has a responsibility to reach out in providing information to potential clients.
Veterans have a right to be provided with equal benefits in any part of the country in which they or their dependants reside. Geographical location should not determine the quality or level of service provided. Confidentiality of information must be preserved.
Veterans have a right to receive fair and equal treatment, irrespective of rank, position, or status. They should be treated with tact, comprehension and understanding. They should be involved in the decisions affecting their care and the formulation of programs and benefits.
Veterans have a right to receive referral and representational assistance in presenting their claims for benefits and services in the official language of their choice. This assistance should be broad based, and should not be restricted to governmental agencies.
Having posted our draft veterans bill of rights on the Legion website in early March, 2006, we then shared this document with Veterans Affairs Canada. We firmly believe that the Government of Canada should adopt a robust bill of rights for veterans to ensure that their special service to Canada is recognized and compensated.
This bill of rights, however, should not be formulated as a service delivery. Any promise of exemplary service should flow from the bill of rights, not the reverse. We commented to VAC that their first version of a veterans bill of rights was clearly framed in the context of service delivery goals. The latest version is vastly improved but we still feel that any promise of first-class services should flow from the bill of rights.
Only this morning we met with five other veterans organizations and officials from Veterans Affairs, and one of the things we did was work extensively on the wording of the bill of rights. It has been back and forth among us a number of times and yet again we have spent some hours assisting with the wording of it. I do believe we have pretty well reached a consensus with Veterans Affairs and with the other service organizations so that we, at least, will be satisfied to bring the document very quickly to a final draft.
I'm sorry, I'm forgetting a paragraph that I left out when I ad libbed.
We understand that in your discussions, some members of this committee were of the opinion that responsibilities of veterans should also be spelled out. I would like to assuage your fears in this regard. The responsibilities of Canadian Forces members are very clear. They are there to serve the interests of the nation at the risk of paying the ultimate sacrifice. All veterans assume that risk during their military service. In our view, there can be no more demanding responsibility.
There have been widespread discussions on the issue of an ombudsman. The Legion remains convinced that an ombudsman has no role to play in the current legislated disability award pension process where there is access to representation at no cost, through either the Bureau of Pensions Advocates or the Legion Service Bureau. These provide free services, whether or not the veteran or dependant is a member of the Legion, in seeking redress from the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.
Furthermore, if Veterans Affairs Canada feels the necessity to appoint an ombudsman, he or she should be fully independent of the Canadian Forces ombudsman. Unfortunately, when one asks for the appointment of an ombudsman, one may not fully understand exactly what is being asked for. There are various models of ombudsman. Some have a legislated mandate that defines very specifically the responsibilities. Others may be appointed under a regulatory process, again with specific responsibilities, while others may be appointed with a mandate to define the role in consultation with interested parties, including the government.
An ombudsman could also act as a last resort intervenor in the administrative decisions of Veterans Affairs Canada, in confirming eligibility for the non-economical programs of the new Veterans Charter in the context of a veterans bill of rights and could also deal with long-term care issues. If Veterans Affairs Canada does indeed see the need for an ombudsman, they should clarify what model they want to put in place. The bottom line for the Legion is that we need to better understand what would be the role and specific mandate of an ombudsman.
Again, I will ad lib for a moment. This subject was also included in our meeting that we held earlier today. We had a great deal of discussion on it and I feel quite confident that with continued open discussions of this nature between Veterans Affairs Canada and your veterans service organizations we will be able to reach a mutually satisfactory conclusion on that particular subject.
Next is the VIP. Vast improvements have been made in recent years to increase eligibility for the VIP for both veterans and spouses. In the same context, the Legion has been advocating for a seniors' independence program modelled on the very successful VIP.
VAC could continue to tweak the VIP program. However, we believe that it needs to be reviewed, primarily because it is based on an overly complex eligibility matrix with various entry gates, which creates confusions for veterans and providers.
For example, veterans can qualify for a VIP on the basis of a disability pension, as income-qualified clients, as overseas clients awaiting access to a priority access bed, or as frail veterans. Portability of VIP benefits is not assured if a client moves to a condo. Allied veterans have now regained access to long-term care, mostly in community facilities, but they lost their eligibility to war veterans allowance, which was their gateway to VIP. In other words, access to VIP is too complex and too restrictive, yet at times the regulations for eligibility are not framed in the context of aging in place.
VAC needs to put in place integrated services that are based on health needs rather than type of military service. Aging veterans should be eligible for appropriate early intervention, more intensive home supports, and a wider range of residential choices based on needs, without voiding their access to VIP. Hopefully the ongoing continuing care research program conducted between Veterans Affairs Canada and the Government of Ontario will provide hard data on the costs and outcomes of care-in-home care, supportive housing, and residential care facilities.
The bottom line is that access to VIP should be based on need, while its overriding objective should be to delay the transition to residential care and to promote aging in place, which was indeed its original objective.
We have very much appreciated the opportunity to appear at this committee to share our views on these extremely important veterans' issues that you have identified as your priorities. Throughout our 80 years of service, the Legion has taken very seriously the importance of our advocacy role in protecting veterans' rights. The Legion wants to make sure that those rights are identified and understood by all Canadians, and more fundamentally, fully addressed by the government and Veterans Affairs Canada.
Protecting those rights is more than a goal. To us it is a sacred trust, and we commend the committee highly for seeking to improve those rights.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for being here today, Mr. Allard and Ms. Burdett.
[English]
You made very professional and very good presentations, and I think you're quite clear on your points. I very much appreciate hearing from the Royal Canadian Legion.
I have a lot of military retirees, as well as war veterans, with the former military bases of Cornwallis and Greenwood in my riding. So I have a lot of interaction with members of your organization through my office.
My father was very proud of his association with your organization. He was a service officer and he was president of his legion. He was a World War II vet and a member of the West Novie Regiment. I was fortunate to go to the unveiling of a cairn of the West Novie at Camp Aldershot, which I point out is the oldest regiment in the country. I believe the Annapolis Regiment and the Lunenburg Regiment were amalgamated to form the West Novies. So I had a chance to see that.
My office works with and is in contact with many service officers in many branches in western Nova Scotia. We recognize the very difficult work they do.
One of the questions I would ask is on the pension advocates and that office at Veterans Affairs. In your relationships with them, as they apply or as they launch appeals and they work with them, are you satisfied with the professionalism of the service, the access to the service, the number of people employed in that division to service your members? Is it at the level that you would like, or would you like to see some improvements?
:
I will reply in two ways, if I may.
[English]
On the level of representation provided by the Legion as advocates or as service officers, I guess our model is really that of having service officers at the branch level who refer. They refer cases to the provincial command service officers or to the national command service officers.
At the level of what we call the command service officers, there is a very good rapport between us and VAC officials, because we have to be kept up to date with all the business processes that are in place in VAC if we want to serve our clients in a very professional manner.
We have regular training conferences, which we hold in specific regions during the odd years. In the even years, we actually bring all our command service officers to Charlottetown for a three-day training conference, where we basically get the training from the VAC officials that we need to be good service officers. We also have the tools that are provided to us by Veterans Affairs Canada, such as access to the client service delivery network. So I think we are well trained and well equipped to represent clients who do seek services.
If I were to comment on the structure that is in place at Veterans Affairs Canada, I would have to say that certainly BPA has the number of lawyers in place that they need. I think you were told last week that there's a new batch of BPA lawyers who have been brought on board. However, I think there is a rquirement to possibly appoint new members to the VRAB, because they obviously don't have sufficient numbers to meet the need.
So generally speaking, yes, the structures are there. Satisfaction surveys indicate that clients are well served. We've done a survey in Legion magazine, which actually confirms some of the results that Veterans Affairs Canada is espousing.
:
From a national level, we can be somewhat restricted in the assistance we give to branches, because each and every branch is autonomous and they are very close about their autonomy. They do things on their own.
Within provincial commands, there is often means of assistance to some of these branches. If there are ways that we can get them training information, books to help them, suggestions, we do so; and of course, always at meetings we discuss the problems in the various parts of the country, rural and otherwise, and there is sometimes the assistance from one area to another, verbal support.
We are certainly there for the branches. We are trying our best. As to finances, society itself decrees that we are going to lose some branches. In so doing, it could be that others will become larger. It's just a sign of the times.
Unfortunately, people do not seem to want to do something any more because it feels good to do it. The barn-raising days of Saskatchewan's past I'm afraid are over. People do not always get out and volunteer in the same manner we used to.
We have to change with the times. We have to progress and look for new programs to continue our legions. We are working at it and looking for those all the time. Any ideas you have will be very, very welcome, I can assure you.
As far as government assistance is concerned, we are a free and independent organization. We would not want to be beholden to anybody, even our government.
:
I'd like to welcome our guests today.
I always have a great deal of difficulty when it comes to veterans, but I can assure you that I feel a great deal of gratitude toward them. With respect to the matter of an ombudsman, I have trouble understanding that the National Council of Veteran Associations, whose president is Mr. Chadderton, has no difficulty with the idea of an ombudsman, while the Royal Canadian Legion disagrees with the concept. Could that be because an ombudsman might interfere in your area? I don't know anything about this.
We have heard reference to the Veterans Charter. Most Canadian associations agree with the charter, with the exception of the Legion to some extent. We also talked about the Veterans Independence Program, the VIP. Society should be somewhat opposed to this program. I want to tell you about my father, André Perron, who spent 50 years of his life working underground in the copper mines in Rouyn-Noranda, in the Abitibi region, and who died of asbestosis. Unlike veterans, there was no program to help him. He too gave his life for the well-being of everyone seated at this table. He gave his life so that copper wires could be manufactured for our lighting and air conditioning systems. And yet he got nothing for that. The problem with Canadian society at the moment is that it is aging and people who made a direct contribution to Canadian democracy are not enjoying the same support as our veterans.
Based on what I've said, I would like you to explain the role the Canadian Legion should be playing in 2006.
:
Will you give me an opportunity to speak? I cannot speak while I'm listening.
A good model would be one where the ombudsman could be involved in administrative decisions regarding the various health programs provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs. We are not sure that an ombudsman could play a role in the area of disability pensions or compensation because that would require an amendment to the act. If that were the model chosen and if the law had to be revised, we would certainly be flexible, but we would ask to be consulted in the drafting of the legislation.
What I am trying to say is that we are very flexible, regardless of the model, and that we will work with Veterans Affairs Canada and other veterans organizations to try to find a model that everyone finds acceptable. I assume your committee would want to be consulted about the model as well.
[English]
I must add that I don't think it's fair to describe the Legion as a social club, in view of the advocacy that we do
[Translation]
I apologize, but I don't know exactly how to say that in French.
The Legion's benefits to society may be attributable to the fact that we are a social club, but I think that isn't an accurate description of the Legion, if that is all that is said.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Ms. Burdett and Mr. Allard, for appearing here today.
I'd like to begin by telling you that I couldn't agree more with you on one of the comments that you made in your presentation, that veterans have a right to be provided with equal benefits in any part of the country in which they or their dependants reside. Geographical location should not determine the quality or level of service. I could not agree with you more. I think that goes without saying, and I believe everyone in this room feels the same way.
There was so much contained in your presentation that it's going to be hard for me to nail down just a couple of things. I'm going to have a series of questions, and if you could answer them, I would be very much appreciative.
As we said earlier, we are just in the process now of finding out how an ombudsman should work and what a bill of rights should be about, which is why we're hearing from witnesses.
To start, could you tell me, in a few minutes, about the input and the consultation you had, for example, with the previous government for the new Veterans Charter--and please feel free to use some detail. I know it was the Conservative Party that promised to install an ombudsman and a bill of rights for veterans; however, did these topics ever come up during your discussions with the previous government on the new Veterans Charter?
Now that our government is in the consultation stage, which we heard about from Mr. Hillier and Ms. Bruce last week, can you tell us about your vision for how the Legion will work with both the ombudsman and the bill of rights, and do you see a formal relationship between the Legion and the ombudsman?
I haven't had an opportunity to go to your website at this point, but you've posted on your website the veterans bill of rights. Can you tell us a little bit about that, how you arrived at this document? Is there something of a draft nature, or did you have consultations with veterans and other veterans groups when you drew this up?
Another issue that continually comes up among modern-day veterans is that they're not as comfortable as the traditional veteran with the Legion atmosphere. That was one of the reasons the idea of an ombudsman was first raised. What is the current ratio of veterans versus civilians among Legion membership? This is all about veterans, so I just want to know if you could give me a rough ballpark number.
To close, what role do you foresee the ombudsman playing with respect to the department and the veterans it serves? For example, if you could give the committee some advice on how the government should proceed with this initiative, what would you say?
:
Thank you for all those questions. I can't begin to remember what the ones in the middle were.
Your first question was on consultation on the new Veterans Charter. I can answer that one. There was tremendous consultation with the veterans organizations. This has been going on for six years. It started in July 2000. There was consultation with the veterans organizations, with the military, with families; it was ongoing. I spent so much time in Ottawa the last couple of years that my family thought I lived here, and most of that included consultations and visiting.
In all those consultations, was the issue of an ombudsman or the bill of rights ever raised? Yes, indeed. There was discussion on absolutely everything that could come up around it. As to the exact content of those discussions, in the number of meetings we have had over the past years, I do not remember exclusively.
I do know, and I repeat what I said earlier, that one of our problems with an ombudsman has always been that everybody has a different concept of it, and one of us doesn't necessarily know what the other person's concept is when we're discussing it. One person is saying, absolutely not, under any circumstances; and the other one is saying we definitely need one with lots of teeth.
I appreciate Ms. Burdett and Mr. Allard coming today and helping us through this.
I think we need to be really clear that we are here and we want to work to make it as good as we can and to understand what is best for our veterans. I think that is clearly the goal of everyone at this table.
When I talked to people, it was also mainly during the campaign when I had an opportunity to chat with a number of them. There were concerns that continually came up about the vehicle in which they can get to places, someone who would help them with a call to an ombudsman.
I read through the report that you used today, which is an excellent report, by the way. From the comments that you've made, I'm hearing that you aren't really necessarily opposed to it. You're really trying to understand it, you want the guidelines set out, and you want clarification on that. Is that basically it?
If there is a simple answer to that, I think we can move ahead. I have a further question, if that's where we're heading.
:
If they can't throw me off, my own colleagues will do it. Do you see that?
I want to make a couple of comments and then ask a couple of direct questions.
The legions are the centrepiece—I'm from northern Ontario—and are the focus of our communities. We know we've struggled through a lot of these things. I applaud your efforts to stay at arm's length, but there has to be some way we can find—and we need recommendations from the Legion at some point on how to do it—to support the legions in the communities, because doing so is going to support our veterans. We have a new crop of veterans coming up and we're going to add to them every year.
There has to be some way we can do it. I don't have the answers, but the Legion must know something to do with it. They're not social clubs, as you termed it, and we understand that. The fact is, we have to find a way to do it, because the Legion is the face of the community for supporting our veterans.
Now I have two direct questions.
Ms. Burdett, you mentioned earlier—and I'll return to the ombudsman, which is the topic of the day—that you're confident from the discussions you had today, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that there's going to be an agreement in place. I don't know whether there's anything you can share with us or whether it's all confidential. What happened today that has changed your opinion?
At the same time, could you answer the question...? I heard you answer one of my colleagues across the way; I think the question was when you first heard about the ombudsman. Can you tell us from your memory when this all started? Where did it come from? However did the day arrive that somebody said, “We need an ombudsman for our veterans”? I haven't been able to gather that out of all this discussion today. Maybe you could qualify that for me.
Then I have one last quick question, if I'm allowed time.
:
Good. I can go either way. No, don't take that the wrong way.
Thank you for coming, Ms. Burdett and Mr. Allard. I know we've been looking at the question of an ombudsman. We went through it in the last session of Parliament and we covered quite a bit of it. I'm glad to hear that one of the concerns we're having is the fact that there is no clear definition of what an ombudsman should be. So until we actually know what we're getting into, it's going to be hard to comment. However, there is one issue that came up that I would like you to comment on.
There seem to be two different groups, and maybe there are two different services that are required. I look at the older veterans, those who went through Korea, those who went through the Second World War and some of the earlier peacekeeping, and there seems to be more of a social fabric, where you rely on some of your colleagues to help you out. It's not that the newer crew doesn't, but it seems that the earlier veterans seemed to rely on the Legion and their peers to get them the help they needed, and the later crew of veterans, who are more recent, look to institutionalized aid that might come in the way of an ombudsman.
Could you comment on that, the differences or the evolving changes within our veteran population and the needs that are there?
I dare say, I think there have been improvements to the VIP program in the last year and a half. I would give full credit to members of this committee who were here last year--Anthony Rota, Gilles Perron, and me--because we fought very hard for VIP improvements, and we were successful in having some people included who used to be excluded. So I think that speaks well of this committee as a whole and the commitment this committee has to veterans.
That said, I've been listening very carefully to the conversation that has been going on around the table today. It's always good conversation, but there seem to be some misconceptions here.
On the ombudsman, I agree with you, it was originally talked about in 1966, and here we are in 2006 and we still don't have it. So it's long overdue and it's time. But in terms of what the government could do, it had two choices: one choice was simply to decide on its own what an ombudsman would be and how it would be structured, and just do it, or it could do what we have chosen to do, which is to give a choice to all parties in the House, who all have concerns, and to consult with all veterans groups and get their input. So there's no reason to be the least bit embarrassed about being a little unsure of what you think the ombudsman's role is going to be, because it hasn't been determined yet.
We need to hear from veterans groups. We need to hear from opposition parties. We need to hear input from veterans themselves--and I'm hoping we're going to hear from a lot of veterans--about what we could actually do that would improve their lives.
This isn't a question. It's more a statement than anything else.
I would like to close by thanking you very much for all you do as the Legion. I recognize the contribution you make to this country, I recognize the contribution you make to veterans, and I'm here to assure you that all we want to do is back that up. That's what the ombudsman position is all about.
The bill of rights is another issue that's going to have to be dealt with, and I agree again. I've heard it said today that it would be like putting the cart before the horse if you didn't have a bill of rights for an ombudsman to oversee or to enforce--whatever wording you want to use. So I look forward to your cooperation in putting this together, and I think we can play a very significant role.
My understanding, Ms. Burdett, is that you're going to be leaving your position, so I may not see you again. That's happening in the next little while, is it?
:
I will be very brief, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to start by saying something to my friend, Pierre. I want us to be on the same wavelength, Pierre, and I want us to speak frankly to each other. I will list about 10 activities and you can tell me whether or not they are part of what the Royal Canadian Legion does. First, does the Legion organize blood donor clinics? Yes, that is part of the Royal Canadian Legion's activities. What about presenting historical lectures on the First and Second World Wars? Yes, you do that. Do you give students scholarships? Yes, you do. Do you help young people financially or otherwise in the area of sports? You say you do. Do you help people such as veterans find solutions to their problems? Yes, you do. Do you organize Christmas parties? You say you do. Do you organize card parties? You say you do. Do you organize dart games? You do. Do you organize breaks so that people can have a beer? You say you do.
In Quebec, we call all of those activities a social mission. Consequently, the Royal Canadian Legion is a social club. I never said that you were part of a club whose main reason for existing was to have a drink. You have the same social mission as a social club. Consequently, would you care to retract your comment, because I did not describe the Legion incorrectly.
My next comment is to the chair. Mr. Chairman, I think we missed the boat today. Next time you invite witnesses please ask them to give us their views about establishing an ombudsman's post and about the charter and, if they have no views on these matters, please ask them to stay home. Today, we've been contesting or promoting the Royal Canadian Legion, but we have not talked about the ombudsman or the charter. It was a waste of my time.
I am not saying that the people were not nice or friendly, but they did not give us their own definitions of certain terms. We don't have time to wait. We are here to find out what they think about this so that we can come to some conclusions ourselves. That is not what we heard today. I apologize, but I think it was a waste of my time. That was not because Pierre and Ms. Burdett did not want to do a good job. They did a good job and they gave us a good introduction to the Royal Canadian Legion.
I preferred your last visit. In 2005, you appeared before the committee and we asked you what you thought about the ombudsman. You said that you wanted no such position. Thank you for that — you said exactly what you thought. We did not waste any time. After that, we moved to other matters and had a friendly discussion about the Royal Canadian Legion. I was not expecting you to define your vision for me today. I did not want to hear what the government thinks, I wanted your opinion about the ombudsman and about the charter. That does not mean that your vision is wrong and that ours is right. We are here to determine what the ombudsman should do, what he should be, how he should act and what rights veterans should have.
That was our task today. We were not here to talk about just anything. Our job is to learn from your knowledge to make up our minds about these things. We were unable to benefit from your knowledge. I'm sorry, but in my opinion, today's meeting was not very productive. I do not know whether my colleagues share my opinion, but I've never said privately what I wanted to say openly.