Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 29th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Ladies and gentlemen, I know we have some other people on their way. Welcome yet again to another meeting of the veterans affairs standing committee.

Today we have a very special guest and witness with us. We've all put a lot of time into laying out the groundwork for the creation of the position of ombudsman; now we have with us the first ombudsman, Colonel Patrick B. Stogran.

The orders of the day are that pursuant to Standing Orders 110 and 111, we will discuss the order in council appointment of Colonel Patrick B. Stogran to the position of veterans ombudsman, referred to the committee on Tuesday, November 13, 2007.

Sir, I don't know if you've been told 10 or 20 minutes. It's 10 minutes as you see fit. You are front and centre today. After that, we have a predetermined order for a chance to ask you questions.

Sir, the floor is yours.

[Colonel Patrick Stogran, Veterans Ombudsman]

Mr. Chairman, may I start off by expressing my sincere appreciation to the committee for the invitation to appear here today.

It's been two short weeks since I took my release from the Canadian Forces and laid a wreath at the National War Memorial on Remembrance Day, which was my first official duty as Canada's first veterans ombudsman.

I can't deny that it was hard for me to leave the Canadian Forces. I feel I still had a great deal to offer, but the type of employment I was looking forward to in this job I think has the potential for me to put as much passion into as I did into the profession of arms. Also, I very much look forward not only to improving the lives and well-being of the veterans of past conflicts, but also to smoothing the way ahead for those who continue to perpetuate that legacy overseas.

At this point in time, I am hardly in a position to speak to any degree of detail about the plight of our veterans, the trials and tribulations that they face or what I intend to do about them. Suffice to say that the situation is very, very complex and with so many potential windmills to tilt at, I find that it is most prudent to keep my powder dry for the time being.

Notwithstanding, with the research that I did leading up to taking up the appointment and the flurry of meetings and consultations I have embarked on since, I feel confident that my philosophy vis-à-vis the way I will approach this challenge is fairly mature and will accurately reflect how I will do business.

My intention, therefore, is to introduce myself and this philosophy to committee members.

I come from a culture that places its priorities in terms of mission, buddy, self--in that order. During my military career I never strayed from that principle, and I was known to speak out when I believed the conventional wisdom of the day would compromise our army's ability to perform its mission or would not be in the best interests of our soldiers. Principled stances are not always the best career moves one can make, but I'm proud to be able to boast that I never let career imperatives stand in the way of my commitment to my profession.

I might add that I'm also proud that I can boast that our recent history in Afghanistan has proven the correctness of my past assertions.

This committee, and more importantly our veterans, can rest assured that I will carry that ethos of mission, buddy, self with me into the office of the veterans ombudsman. As the veterans ombudsman, I see myself as the champion of their cause. As testament to this, I've spent the first two weeks of my tenure reaching out to and visiting with as many veterans and veterans associations as I could. Consultation will be one of the hallmarks of my tenure as ombudsman. It is very important that I develop and maintain a deep empathy towards the veterans and remain abreast of the issues that cause them difficulty.

Independence will be the other hallmark, and one that I will vigorously protect. This is critically important if I hope to prevent political or bureaucratic convenience from ever tainting my objectivity or standing in the way of the fair treatment of our veterans.

I hasten to add that Veterans Affairs has been proactive in setting up the office of the veterans ombudsman. A skeleton project staff has been working for some months studying the DND ombudsman, drafting organizational charts and job descriptions, establishing infrastructure, and even receiving and logging complaints from clients; to date, we've received over 100.

We've hired some term employees to kick-start the intake and investigation processes, and we are currently reviewing the cases we've received to date with a view to identifying where we can make some short-term successes. I'm optimistic that we will be at what I would call an intermediate operating capability by spring and that we will be fully operational by the fall of next year, in 2008.

My personal priority in the coming weeks will be to hire a director general of operations who is a master of the mechanics of government and who can make things happen without letting us become overly bureaucratic ourselves. Indeed, timeliness or the lack thereof seems to be a recurring theme in the criticisms levelled against Veterans Affairs, so I will endeavour to make a rapid decision-action cycle a high priority for this office.

Finally, a fundamental principle that I want to follow as we design and implement the processes and structures for the office will be to make and maintain a personal relationship with people who avail themselves of our services.

It's been suggested that without legislation to back up the position of veterans ombudsman, the position will lack the teeth necessary to have a significant impact on the problems that affect the lives of our veterans. I submit that it remains to be seen.

On one hand, I can understand how legislation might make the job easier, but I could foresee how legislation might be as much a constraint as a freedom. In my experience, it could be argued that other ombudsmen have had tremendous impact within their domains despite the frustrations they may have experienced due to the lack of legislation. I might add that I am certainly not averse to taking on such challenges and arguing in favour of legislation if the need arises.

I think any government would be hard-pressed to ignore any suggestion I might make to enhance the lives of those who have served our country, even suggestions made to improve the efficacy of the office of the veterans ombudsman, because today the majority of Canadians share much compassion and empathy for the plight of our veterans. I also think it would be much easier for me to identify accurately what the letter of such legislation should be and to have it adopted after I have some experience under my belt.

It has been suggested that without the legislation to back it up the Veterans Ombudsman will lack the teeth necessary to have a significant impact on the problems that affect the lives of our veterans. l submit that this remains to be seen. On one hand l can understand that legislation might make the job of the Office easier, but l could foresee where legislation might be as much a constraint as it is a freedom. However, if I see that an absence of legislation is a significant handicap for me, I won't hesitate to say so as clearly as possible.

Another criticism of the mandate has been that the Veterans Ombudsman will not intercede in case reviews and appeals. To the contrary, however, l am quite pleased to see that l will operate outside the review and appeal process. Indeed, if there might be systemic problems inherent in the current adjudicative process, l would argue that introducing yet another player or level would be more bureaucratic smoke-and-mirrors that puts a Band-Aid on the symptoms of a problem rather than addressing the root cause. The mandate of the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman includes addressing systemic problems and emerging issues which l think gives me plenty of scope to make the current review and appeals process function more effectively if need be.

In closing, I wish to reaffirm the pledge I made when it was announced that I would take up the appointment of veterans ombudsman: it's all about the veterans; their cause is my commitment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Thank you very much.

We already have a list of questioners who are chomping at the bit, I am sure. First we will go over to the Liberals, the official opposition. Go ahead, Mr. St. Denis, for seven minutes.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Colonel, for being here.

Thank you for taking on this very important job. There may be questions around how it's organized, how it's structured, the relationship, and what not, but that said, there will be nothing but best wishes for you from all quarters as you begin a very important mandate.

I was pleased to hear in your comments that should you feel, as you get some experience in the role as veterans ombudsman, that legislation to back you up would be necessary, you won't be shy to speak up. That is encouraging.

I wish the best of luck to you. You will certainly have a lot of support as you move forward.

Otherwise, the thing that stood out most in your comments was your interest in a rapid decision-action cycle. The witnesses we had at our Tuesday meeting--whose testimony may be forwarded to you, depending on a motion that we will deal with at some point in time--was a case study in the opposite, in the lack of timeliness. It was a nine-year journey for a serviceman, now out of the service, and his wife. He suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder.

From my very limited involvement with the military, I do know that decisions within the military structure can be made quickly and decisively and that action can be brought to bear on a particular circumstance quickly. That is part of the culture of the military.

If there is one overriding theme for our veterans, it's red tape. Coupled with that is lack of timeliness. If it is not too early in your new role, could you talk a bit about the importance of that to you? Could you expand on your comment here?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chair, as I pointed out in my opening comments, a recurring theme that has become blatantly apparent to me is the lack of timeliness. Indeed, I would submit that the stories I've heard of our veterans of war services who have received their entitlements just shortly before their demise are nothing short of tragic.

Indeed, in this day and age, personnel who have come back off so-called peacekeeping operations suffering from post-traumatic stress were probably not treated with the sense of urgency that I would think the situation warranted. I would submit that we viewed past operations, post-Korea and pre-Afghanistan, as being something that was “out of sight, out of mind”.

Indeed, it's been suggested that we shouldn't be sending soldiers overseas unless there is a peace to keep. I would submit that, conversely, we don't send soldiers overseas unless there's a war. I submit that our soldiers--it doesn't matter where we've sent them in the world--have been submitted to situations that were every bit as severe as the individual occurrences during the great wars and Korea, so it's indeed a travesty that we have not been treating their concerns as quickly as possible.

I must say that throughout my career I've always challenged bureaucracy. I've challenged bureaucrats in and out of uniform throughout my career, and I think my record stands for itself in Afghanistan. We made it happen. Our battalion was slated to be withdrawn from the order of battle, so consequently it was shortchanged in all of the resources, money included; yet when we were called upon to deploy to Afghanistan, we were in a position to pull certain strings and make things happen in short order. Suffice it to say that I'm the kind of person who likes to cut through bureaucracy.

Having said that, I've encountered huge amounts of bureaucracy just stepping into this job. I would submit that things are in discussion now that might severely constrain me at the office.

All that is to say that I stayed in the army for 31 years because I enjoy a fight. I joined the office of the ombudsman because I deeply believe that they have entitlements, and I have a sense of giving back. All I can say at this point in time is that the government has displayed a lot of moral courage in appointing me to the position, because I intend to take on those impediments to swift closure of cases with a vengeance.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

May I have another moment, Mr. Chair?

I recognize that you've just taken up your post in the last couple of weeks--although I understand you've been studying and preparing for quite some time, since you were first asked to take on the job--but is there anything in the mandate, either as the mandate was publicly declared when you took office or in the background to the mandate, that you could share with us as a cause for concern?

You suggest here that the inability of the ombudsman to intercede in case reviews and appeals is a good thing. I would agree with you, certainly, on that point, although I would be hopeful that you could, for example, look at the appeals and review process, writ large, and as ombudsman comment on the process, if not on individual cases. Are there any limitations that you foresee in your mandate now, or is it too soon to say? Also, are you allowed to comment on the appeals and review process, writ large?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chair, it's indeed too soon for me to state categorically whether or not the mandate is too loosely written or not something that I'll be able to work with. However, in my opinion, I've always been the kind of person for whom the absence of direction is an opportunity, not a constraint. I think, in the first instance, there is the potential, in the way the mandate is written, for me to actually value-add to the position and turn it into something bigger than what the veteran community and indeed Canadians are expecting.

Conversely, as I said in my opening statement, if—and I must stress “if”—there's a problem with the veterans review and appeal process, I think it would be wrong. In fact, it would amount to bureaucratic smoke and mirrors to simply inject another level of bureaucracy to address decisions and get involved in the process. Indeed, I think it's far more constructive to have a source that can, on behalf of the veterans, troubleshoot the system and make recommendations.

With the mandate worded such that the office is to investigate systemic problems as well as emerging issues--that would suggest to me that I can go looking for smoke and not wait for fire--we can have a significant impact on any stage of the review and appeal process where it's being constrained by what I would say is bureaucratic imperatives.

Suffice to say that we're not allowed, by law, to get involved in reviewing decisions. Certainly I've met members who are involved in the decision-making process and I get the impression they are genuine. So if the system supports them, then I think the ombudsman will be in a position to enhance that process for the veterans.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Thank you.

Now we're going over to the Bloc Québécois.

Monsieur Perron, for seven minutes.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Good morning, sir.

I don't know what to call you this morning. Should I call you colonel, sir or special advisor? I won't call you ombudsman yet.

You're no doubt aware of the fact that this committee, of which I am a proud member, has worked very hard to prepare a report on the office you now occupy. It was a unanimous report that my friends on the other side of the table supported. In that report, we mentioned that the very great majority of ombudsmen, including the ombudsman of Ontario, André Marin, and those who did not come and testify but about whom I was able to read information, were appointed under an act of Parliament. Those ombudsmen report to Parliament, unlike you, because, pursuant to paragraph 127.1(1)(c) of the Public Service Employment Act, you were appointed as the minister's special advisor. If we don't go any further into your appointment... Your staff reports to the department.

May I conclude—and I'd like to have your comments on this point—that you are the political representative and that you are also a member of the staff reporting to the deputy minister of Foreign Affairs? With all this ambiguity, how can one simultaneously serve the minister, veterans and the department? That's the problem that you will have to solve over the next three years, because I believe you've been appointed for three years, if I correctly understood the information. Over the next three years, I hope you'll be able to pay special attention to veterans.

I would like to hear your comments.

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chair, I'm going to try to answer in French. I've already obtained the level required by the public service, but I have never had the opportunity to work in French. That will be one of my priorities in the next few years.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

You may answer in English, sir.

[Col Patrick Stogran]

If you don't understand my answer, I can finish it in English.

You asked me whether I was a political representative. That is not the case. My mandate will be in effect for only three years. If the government does not give me the opportunity to remain in the position, that will mean to me that I have succeeded. As I said at the outset, it's all about veterans. I have worked for soldiers throughout my career, and today veterans are my soldiers. As a commander and officer of the Canadian Forces, I'm going to work for them.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Have you finished?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

If my answer is satisfactory, yes.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

All right. I'm enormously concerned by another matter. The case of André Marin, a former ombudsman of the Department of National Defence, set a precedent in the Canadian government. Mr. Marin issued a somewhat harsh report on National Defence, and his contract was not renewed. The same danger awaits you. The comments I'm making are not a criticism of you: their sole purpose is to warn you of these dangers.

You have been appointed special advisor to the minister, which is a political office. So you are a political employee. How can you live with the idea that you're going to have to issue a report and, before it becomes public, have it approved by the minister before you submit it? How will you be able to prepare a report expressing the essence of your thinking?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chairman, I know that the minister has an obligation to submit the reports I prepare to Parliament. It is up to me to determine what will improve the lives and welfare of veterans. The minister will not have an opportunity to change what I believe. As I have already said, my mandate is only for three years. I am an officer of the Canadian Forces, and the duties I am talking about here are a second career. In fact, I would not want to become a public servant. I had the opportunity to enter the public service or to accept a business position in industry, but I decided to become Veterans Ombudsman. My sole purpose is to improve veterans' lives.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you for your presentation. I nevertheless want to tell you that you have a considerable job ahead of you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

He didn't have any minutes left, and he's already over, but he does that all the time. You'll get used to that around here.

Now we'll go over to Mr. Stoffer, with the New Democratic Party, for five minutes.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

First of all, Colonel Stogran, I welcome you to your position and to the committee. On behalf of the committee, I also want to thank you for your 31 years of service to your country while in uniform. I read and heard a lot about you in the news at the beginning of the Afghan situation. I want to compliment you for your service.

I wish you good luck in your new role as well. You're going to need some luck in this particular regard. You talked about bureaucracy. You're about to enter what I think is one of the most bureaucratic jungles we have, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.

I have a couple of questions for you. Have you had a chance to review our ombudsman report that we did in February of 2007, which came from the committee? That's this one right here.

[Col Patrick Stogran]

A Helping Hand for Veterans? Yes, sir.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

You'll notice that one of the things we talk about quite prominently is the need for veterans and their families to have an ombudsman. In your report--and I'm sure this must have been a slip--you don't say the word “families” at all. The reason I say that is if a veteran dies and his spouse is left behind, who could she then turn to? Our thinking, of course, was that the spouse or the child of a veteran should be able to turn to an ombudsman as well, in order to seek assistance.

Is it part of your mandate to not only help the veterans but their spouses and children as well?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chair, when I say “veterans”, I mean the member as well as the family.

I was in Bosnia during the gunslinging days of 1993, where we were sending peacekeepers over to be witnesses or hostages to the situation. At that time, when this was considered to be a bloodless offering in the name of peace, the families of the soldiers, sailors, and air force personnel who were sent over there were left at home to suffer all the fears and anxieties and apprehensions that our nation is today with the situation in Afghanistan. I know that only too well.

I might add that despite the notoriety I gained from my deployment to Afghanistan as the first combat mission since the Korean War, the situation I faced in Bosnia as an unarmed military observer was far more dangerous to my well-being and almost as well publicized. My wife had far less access to the things we've put in place from the lessons we learned over those years. When I came back from Afghanistan, being away from home for a very long time, one of the most profound realizations I recognized was the trauma that families experience. Indeed, they can experience the full array of occupational stress injuries that soldiers can experience overseas. I might even say that they're more susceptible to it because they're in less of a position to do anything about it.

I must apologize to the committee for my omission of the word “families”. They are certainly first and foremost in my mind. The personnel who serve overseas are a unit. It's them, as well as the strong families who stay behind. We must not only support them during the deployments, but certainly also in the aftermath of the duties that our soldiers, sailors, and air force personnel have in serving overseas.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Thank you.

So briefly then, if I was the spouse of a deceased veteran, would I be able to contact your office if I feel I have a grievance against the Department of Veterans Affairs?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned in my opening statement, the idea of putting a personal face on the office of the ombudsman means we're going to endeavour to make the office of the ombudsman the go-to place for anything to do with Veterans Affairs. Indeed my approach to business is going to be much the same as when I was a commander. My place is with the veterans, to reach out to the community, while my director general of operations runs the office at home. I hope that through that outreach everybody who has anything to do with the lives and well-being of our veterans will feel free to come forth.