Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 29th, 2007

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chair, as I said earlier, my intention is to treat this as I would have a higher command position in the military. I will find a chief of staff, a director general of operations, or a second-in-command, if you will, who understands the machinations of government and knows how to make things happen.

My place is in the trenches with the troops, getting out there and putting a face and a voice on our endeavours. I'm looking forward to meeting as many veterans as I can and developing an empathy with them. It started with my visit to Mr. Babcock's residence in Spokane last week.

[Lui Temelkovski, Liberal, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Excellent.

Of the 150 cases or so you've received, what would be the two major areas of concern that veterans have brought to you so far?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chair, at this point, we have not had sufficient trends for me to be able to comment. I think they cover the full spectrum, from too long a cycle to get decisions made to difficulty preparing cases, interpretations of length of service, and those sorts of things. With the number of cases, I don't think we can establish a trend at this point.

[Lui Temelkovski, Liberal, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Thank you.

Now I'll turn it over to my colleague. He has a couple more questions within his time.

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

Thanks, Lui.

As to questions about the mandate and where in the scheme of things the veterans ombudsman is and how that relativity may or may not affect the role, those are things we'll certainly ask the minister when he is here.

Let me say that I believe you will do your utmost, given the tools you have to do the job. If it's appropriate, if not in this mandate, then a future mandate, to have a different set of tools and a bigger tool box, then so be it. I'm sure you won't be shy to speak up.

Let me also be the first one here today to invite you to my part of Canada, which is in northern Ontario. I would be most pleased to assist your office to meet any of my legions or veterans in any setting, in a very non-partisan way, of course.

My colleague asked about promoting the position. I believe people are aware you're in place, but I think it's very important that you say your job is also to be out there, to be that face—if I can use that word—of the position, with a good director of operations keeping the shop humming along. Your being the face of support, comfort, and a handup for veterans is very, very important.

I should come to a question here. You suggested in your presentation that by spring you'll have an operation of some level, and that by roughly a year from now you'll have a full-scale operation. Is that based on conversations with the National Defence and Canadian Forces ombudsman or with others? There are ombudsmen positions at the provincial level in industry across the country, so presumably you've had a chance to speak to some of them about that experience.

How did you come to an expectation that it might take that timeframe to become fully operational?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chair, if I may just refer back to my discussion of the advisory committee, the current question reminded me that I omitted the consideration of aboriginal representation on the advisory committee--veteran aboriginal people.

Regarding the standing up of the office and the timeline, I've articulated it roughly as it is. I think the critical path is going to be the staffing process and getting quality people, people with the right fit for the job. At this point we've hired temporary investigators to achieve quick successes, but I feel the amount of time it will take us to get a skeletal permanent staff on the ground will be around spring to summer. Then we'll be able to be a little more systematic in our approach to things, if you will, in terms of the longer-term approaches.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Now we're back over to the Conservative Party.

Go ahead, please, Mr. Sweet, for five minutes.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me address you as “Colonel” first. Thank you very much for your service to this nation, and particularly with the multiple theatres of operation that you explained you'd been in. It's fortunate that you're here today, given the number of things you had to endure, especially unarmed. I appreciate the fact that you're here.

You mentioned that as the ombudsman you're dedicated to “mission, buddy, self”. For the record, I'd assume that “mission, buddy, self” is going to be the veteran, your internal staff, and then of course yourself.

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chair, I would sort of characterize that my mission is to serve the veterans. My staff will have the same selfless dedication that I will. The “buddy” is the veteran. So the mission is to ensure that we are pursuing fair treatment for all of our veterans in terms of the delivery of the services they should be entitled to. I am the champion of their rights and interests, in the pursuit of fair treatment for our veterans. I put the interests of the veterans ahead of the interests of myself or my staff. Then, finally, the third is worrying about whether or not I get an extension to this job. That's well down the list.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

That's great. If the veteran fulfills two of those aspects, then it's even more highly principled than what I initially thought.

You said, “During my military career I never strayed from that principle”, and you were talking about the fact that principled stances are not always the best career moves one can make.

I would think that if that's been your history, then you're also prepared to make sure that any of your findings are 100% exposed, no matter what the cost of those who would have to hear them.

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chair, that's absolutely the case. I think I have three hallmarks that will characterize the office.

The first one is consultation and collaboration with the veterans. We have to be one with them.

Regarding the second one, I have been doing a lot of pontificating, if you will, or philosophizing about this particular job, because it's been stressed to me by several ombudsmen that I should be impartial. I can't see being impartial when in fact I am representing. I do have a bias towards the veteran.

However, that's not to say that the second hallmark won't be objectivity. In order to be objective, we have to be thorough in our research and investigation. We have to be thoughtful in our consideration and pragmatic in our recommendations. That's going to be very important. Two things that we can never lose as the office of the ombudsman are, first, credibility, and then second, the support of the public, who right now are very sympathetic and compassionate towards our veterans. So objectivity is a very important concern.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

My final question is just to clarify some of your testimony and make sure.... You said:

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....

I want to give you the opportunity to clarify. I take it that with all of this skeleton staff and everything you're setting up, you still have 100% leadership capability and veto power over anything that's set up in your office, and it will be set up according to what you feel your mandate is in defending veterans.

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chair, I would have to add to my last comment that the third hallmark would be independence, one that I will protect vigorously. I can say without hesitation that I have been totally independent to date. The staff that has been assigned, a few staff members who've been seconded to the ombudsman position and consider themselves seconded in the plainest definition of the word, have been laying the groundwork for my approval. No decisions have been taken. They've done yeoman's service in doing mounds of paperwork that I was probably dreading most about this particular job.

As a matter of fact, they came to me just yesterday, saying it's time for them, if need be, to truly serve the office of the ombudsman and reflect the independence I've already articulated as being of critical importance, that I have to sign them on formally as staff, and they shouldn't be serving two masters.

The independence part is very important to me, and I can say it's going to be manifest in the culture of everybody who's employed in the ombudsman's office.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Now we're back to Mr. Stoffer, with the New Democratic Party, for five minutes.

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

Thank you once again, sir.

You can understand Mr. Perron's concerns about the fact that we did a unanimous report, and some recommendations of that report haven't yet been met by the government. We're concerned about that because not only opposition members signed on to that report but Conservative members as well. We have concerns about certain aspects of the report. Then again, we'll deal with the minister on that, not specifically you. You can understand some of the frustration.

Of course, as you mentioned, one of the keys is independence, the ability to do what you think is best for the veterans and their families. You said in your presentation to us that Veterans Affairs Canada has been very proactive in helping you set up the office. How many people work for you now who are still with...? For example, the intake office in Charlottetown would deviate.

I'm not sure if you've had a chance to check the testimony--you probably haven't--of the buildup to this veterans ombudsman position, but the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, to be honest with you, let's put it mildly, was not favourable to your being here. I think if they had their way, they would probably not want to see you, but you're here now and they're going to see you.

My concern, of course, is independence. Do you still have people working for you who still work for Veterans Affairs Canada? If they do, when will that separation take place, true independence?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chair, if the member is looking for a precise number, I'd have to come back to the committee, but I believe the number is five, one senior representative and I think four intake investigators. I would have to confirm that. I have not had a chance yet to visit Charlottetown. I've put that lower down on my priority list, after getting around to the veterans.

As I mentioned, certainly for the senior person who is representing the office of the ombudsman in Charlottetown right now, I issued the executive yesterday for her to commence the paperwork to formally cut ties with Veterans Affairs and report solely to me so she doesn't serve two masters.

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

Thank you.

My colleague from the Liberal Party asked about what level you believe the ombudsman position should be in relation to levels within VAC? Should it be an ADM or a DM level, or have you even considered that, in comparison?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chair, as I mentioned, I came into the job expecting it would be at the level of an EX-4, which I believe is the level for the DND ombudsman, because I expect I will deal, at a minimum, at the ADM level. Moreover, the chief of staff or second-in-command or director general I was referring to, I feel should have the experience of an EX-2 to be able to work within the larger system, if you will.

Finally, a very important part of the office of the veterans ombudsman will be outreach and communications. That job should be for a fairly senior person, IS-6 level minimum. So it's the knock-on effect of the lower ranking that's very important.

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

In conclusion, sir, because I may not get another chance, veterans receive either cheques or statements from VAC regarding their pensions or disability amounts on a periodic basis. One thing they've asked me is why they don't include more information in those envelopes they get. One suggestion: I would advise you to advise the department or DND to put who you are, your phone number and address, in those envelopes so people right across the country can have access to who you are and what you're able to do.

My last question is in that regard. As you know, there's a lot of cross-reference between DND and VAC. For example, veterans are very concerned about section 31 of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act concerning marriage after 60 years of age, which means that if your spouse dies and you remarry after 60 and then you die, your second spouse isn't entitled to any benefits. That's a DND policy, but it affects veterans. If I had that problem as a veteran and I came to you for help, how would you solve that issue? The DND ombudsman would tell me that as veteran you've got to go to the veterans ombudsman, but it's a DND problem. How would you solve something of that nature? You're going to see, as you go along, a lot of cross-references in that regard.

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chair, once again, that's speculative in terms of the specificity of that particular case, but I'm quite confident that both I and the DND ombudsman, Monsieur Côté, are of like mind, that the client comes first. Also, without exposing myself to the details of his investigations, he has dabbled in issues that affect veterans. I think it's incumbent on me and Monsieur Côté to come up with a strategy and plan for each individual case, recognizing their complexity, and to identify where we can get most bang for the buck, with a view to the best interests of the members. It's that working relationship, hand in glove, which is why I expected the veterans ombudsman would be of an EX-4 stature or thereabouts.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

You'll find many questions around this place are highly speculative.

Now over to the Conservative Party, with Mr. Cannan, for five minutes.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is all factual, no speculation.

I want to add my accolades to you, Colonel, and I'll call you Mr. Ombudsman, for your years of service to our country and now taking on another challenge. It sounds as if you're up for the challenge and looking forward to the opportunities and helping your colleagues and veterans throughout our country.

I represent Kelowna--Lake Country in the interior of British Columbia. We have a number of seniors and veterans, and I look forward to having you come as well to the.... Bill Tanner, whom I was speaking to yesterday, is our local champion representing a lot of the veterans, and he said to pass along his congratulations to you as well. I know the many others who have come to my office after your announcement are looking forward to the positive results to come.

One of the issues this committee has been discussing--and I'm fairly new to it--is the issue of talking not only to our veterans but also to our existing members in the service. You served for a number of years, and as a newly retired member now sitting as the ombudsman, do you think there's some value in this committee going around to the different forces and talking with some of the members on the bases to find out how they feel about veterans? Can you recall, as a serving member, seeing how Veterans Affairs Canada treated veterans?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chair, first of all, regarding Mr. Bill Tanner, I'm off to Calgary next week, and I'm adding an extra leg to my trip to go to Peachland to visit Mr. Tanner as well as Ken Barwise, both of whom came to my attention very early in my tenure as being people I should meet with. So I look forward to meeting Mr. Tanner.

Regarding meeting young soldiers, personally my approach to business--and far be it from me to make recommendations to the committee, but I certainly think my place is to meet young soldiers. I would suggest that where we separate the traditional veteran from the peacekeeping veteran from the modern veteran in Afghanistan, the monitor or tag line I'm embracing is that there's one veteran, and the needs of the so-called traditional veteran or the veterans of war service are going to be exactly the same as the needs of our so-called peacekeepers probably 20 years hence and what our young soldiers, sailors, and air force personnel serving in Afghanistan today might need 40 or 50 years hence.

The question was how did I feel as a young officer about veterans and that sort of thing. I must say, in all reality, the importance of institutions such as ANAVETS and the Legion completely escaped me. I never in my wildest dreams as a young person expected to be a veteran, and I must say that even though I used to instill in the young soldiers the importance of logging every injury and every sort of trauma you incur throughout your career, for veteran reasons, I was sadly negligent throughout my career, and it's coming back to haunt me now. All that to say I have another message that should be conveyed to those young troops who are serving Canada valiantly now in the campaign on terror.