Veterans Affairs Committee on May 27th, 2009

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much. The clerk will request that document.

We are going to Mr. Harris now, for five minutes.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

When I asked you earlier about independence, I wasn't questioning your personal independence, because it's pretty clear you're acting in an independent way. I'm talking about the independence of the office of the ombudsman. One of the hallmarks of independence, particularly in public offices like yours, is the security of tenure. In my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the ombudsman, who is appointed by the House of Assembly, did have at one time, when it existed before, a 10-year term. The recent revision of that office of ombudsman made it a six-year term, renewable for a further six years.

I just wonder what the length of your appointment as ombudsman is. Is it considered to be renewable, unless there's some...? Are you serving at pleasure or are you serving under good behaviour, or is there some other constraint on your office that would indicate to us whether you're being given a position of some independence?

[Col Pat Stogran]

Mr. Chair, it's a three-year term, and I am removable with cause. I don't know what the conditions would be to be reappointed, but at this point in time I'm not looking that far in advance.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

You're now halfway through it, I would take it.

[Col Pat Stogran]

Yes, I am.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

On the question of information, you gave us a couple of examples and I think you offered Mr. Andrews some more. I want to follow up on the question of Mr. Carrier's regarding the number of cases.

I think you gave evidence to the Senate committee that you had about 1,700 actual cases that needed to be investigated, and that you were able to solve or clear 500 of those, which is not a bad record, given that you didn't have all your staff, and you're perhaps not finished with the other 1,200.

Are you having difficulty getting information that would help you to address individual cases? If an individual veteran is complaining that he's not getting service or he or she requires support for something in their circumstances, are you having difficulty getting information about that particular individual or about programs? Are you being impeded in that way?

[Col Pat Stogran]

Mr. Chair, just by way of background, we look at four levels of intervention that we conduct. Level 1 is basically mediating between a decision-maker and the veteran to find an amicable solution to a problem. Level 2 is where we actually recommend changes to practices or processes that are still within the department. Level 3 is policy changes. Level 4 is external to the department, where problems that manifest themselves on the front line are from legislation and/or regulations.

We're finding that for the levels 1 and 2 interventions that our front line operators, our early intervention analysts, are conducting--and the 500 success stories we have--we're building a very good relationship with the front line of the department, with the decision-makers in many cases. That seems to be progressing well.

Where we're only now starting to break the surface is in level 3, where we start challenging policy, and level 4, where we're looking into regulations or these things that are getting closer to being cabinet confidential and those types of things where legal opinions come in and there are all sorts of other, shall I say, agendas at play. This is where the department seems to be a little more guarded.

The homeless veteran example is only our second truly systemic type of investigation, done in a very superficial manner. We've done the detailed report--pending. We've done an investigation into funerals and burials, which was very much a set piece. The information was quite readily available. As for some of the more perplexing issues down range, that's unproven territory.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I listened carefully when you were talking about the concerns of veterans in having to self-identify at some point or identify with problems that might be, unknown even to them, related to their veteran status. I'm thinking of PTSD as one example of people who have mental health difficulties arising from their service that they haven't identified as such. That seems to be a problem in Veterans Affairs.

My colleague Peter Stoffer has suggested on occasion that we should follow the example of some other countries. When you or any other person is discharged or leaves the service, you're given a card, so here is your veteran's card and you are now a veteran. That has a status with Veterans Affairs, in that they know you exist as a veteran, and you're on their list. They keep track of you or keep you informed of where they are. You're encouraged to be considered a veteran and a potential client of Veterans Affairs. Have you considered or looked into any of those systems that might assist in the department being better able to help veterans?

[Col Pat Stogran]

Mr. Chair, the short answer is that we haven't had the resources to look into it in any sort of detail. Certainly, we're aware of the idea of a card, but at this point in time we haven't actually delved into a study of that type of thing.

It could get into the types of administration conducted within the Canadian Forces, so that a person would not need to have it redone to the satisfaction of Veterans Affairs once they leave the Canadian Forces. It would be a dovetailing of administration. There are many other things. I think a card is but one thing that potentially would help the self-identification problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Stogran.

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

Now we're on to the Liberal Party, with Madam Foote for five minutes.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Thank you, Colonel, for being with us today. I really appreciate your frankness and, clearly, your belief in what you do. I think that's really important for anyone who holds the position that you hold, that of ombudsman, no matter what area you represent.

I also want to go on record to acknowledge what you've said in terms of the conversations you've had and what you've been basing your actions on. It reminds me of a conversation I had with a young man who's done three tours of duty. When we talked about the different programs that are available to him through Veterans Affairs, he pointed out that he's so appreciative of those programs and everything that's being done by the staff of Veterans Affairs, but in reality, what makes all the difference is those who know what you go through when you do a tour of duty and come back. It's the support from your peers that makes all the difference, because you can relate to what they've gone through.

I expect the same is true for you, even though you're not homeless. I know that's just one element of the issues you're having to deal with. You make reference to reports on homelessness that have been done by our allies, and obviously there's been a report done on homelessness here through the department. You seem to have a preference for the one done by the allies. I'm just wondering what difference you see. What is it that we're missing? What is so good about the report done by our allies that we're not seeing in what's been done here in this country?

[Col Pat Stogran]

Mr. Chair, I'm not aware of a study that has been done on such things as the causes of homelessness. The strategy I have seen from the department assesses the situation to the degree of suggesting some “coulds” and “shoulds” that the department might do in the future. In terms of identifying the causes, first of all, on the numbers, we have informally provided mechanisms to the department to identify the numbers of homeless veterans in Canada. I suspect, and this is purely conjecture on my part, that it is perhaps not nearly as problematic as in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia, but I have seen nothing. We have not been able to get to the bottom of that type of thing.

It's a study of the causes of homelessness perhaps in the veterans' community in terms of facts as opposed to a strategy as to how we go ahead. These are the types of studies that were done in other countries.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

What has been done by the department is a strategy on how to proceed. This is looking at causes.

[Col Pat Stogran]

That's how I would characterize that particular document. I know of no other documents within the department in terms of studies that have been done.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

You've talked at length about homelessness. What other issues come up on a recurring basis, the top three or four that you deal with as the ombudsman?

[Col Pat Stogran]

In terms of the numbers, health care in general is number one, but that's a very broad field. Number two is the veterans independence program, which, to give credit where it's due, is groundbreaking. It's an excellent system, but people are falling through the cracks, and we are addressing that. Then there is the disability pension versus the lump sum award within the new Veterans Charter. The new Veterans Charter is the overarching piece.

I would say those are the larger issues.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

I have another observation, Colonel. I would suggest that in an ombudsman position the last place you want to be is having to report to a deputy minister, no matter what field you are covering. In fact, it should be truly independent and report to the House of Commons versus a department.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Have you any comment on that, Colonel Stogran?

[Col Pat Stogran]

I would like to clarify my definition of “independent” because I've seen it in no documentation anywhere. My definition of “independent” is really that my employees, my staff, my team, can make decisions free from influence or from being misled in any way, shape, or form. It is that ability to make those decisions.

Things that do concern me, as I stated to the Senate committee, are.... Many people from the Charlottetown area join Veterans Affairs Canada because it's the best job in town and they love their province, and to come over to an organization such as ours, which can be perceived by people as being adversarial—I like to think it shouldn't be because we're all in it for the veterans in the end—that can affect independence, the freedom to make those decisions based on the facts, and not worry, as one of the members of this committee mentioned, about your next job, if you're ever going to be able to go back to the department.

That would be how I would define “independence”.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Andrews has a brief intervention.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

I have one quick question.

Under your guidelines you don't have access to the ombudsman part of the appeals board and the appeals process and that whole thing. Would you want to get into that part of Veterans Affairs if you had the opportunity?

[Col Pat Stogran]

Mr. Chair, if I can clarify that point, it's included in one of the prohibitions. I do not have the right to review decisions of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, but I can say we have stacks of them provided to us by veterans themselves. We read them all the time. We have access to those types of files, but we will not hear, determine, deal with, challenge them, or make decisions. That is not part of our job.

Now we have a lawyer, this is a very sensitive area because it is getting into a quasi-judicial organization, but we'll comment on the system if the system, as it exists, disadvantages the veterans, but without getting into the specific decisions as we read them every day.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much, Mr. Stogran.

Mr. Clarke, go ahead for five minutes, please.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Thank you very much. I'd like to thank the witnesses here for coming.

I would just like to clarify that the minister also does not have access to the information that Mr. Andrews just brought forward.

I'll just give you a little background here. Having served with the RCMP for 18 years, I am a veteran. I was in charge of my own detachment for a number of years and was able to attain the rank of sergeant. When we talk about files, from an RCMP background, I can say that for every contact we have with our contacts or with our clients, we write a file, as a rule. And there always seems to be a follow-up as part of our mandate to make sure that our clients are dealt with in a timely fashion.

The question I have is, when you're travelling around to 75 communities or for visits with your clients, do you do a client file with your contacts so there is follow-up?