Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 29th, 2007

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

That's very encouraging. I appreciate those words of experience as well, and I think we all take that to heart.

I have one other comment dealing with veterans. As we listened to the witnesses on Tuesday...many times they're dealing with a very emotional issue, and I appreciate your independence and experience, and the credibility, the objectivity, and the integrity you bring to the role. But for a veteran who comes to the committee, sometimes they're afraid of bringing issues forward maybe because of lack of confidence: they might be reprimanded down the road or their pensions might be affected. What kind of system will you have in place to ensure their interests are protected and there are no repercussions to bringing issues forward?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

I can only say that as the champion of the rights and interests of the veterans--that's how I would refer to it--if they are poorly treated for voicing their opinion or whatever, whether it's not receiving the benefits and services they are entitled to as a veteran or they're being poorly treated because of something they said...to me it's seamless; I will champion the rights and interests of the veteran.

I'm not sure if that answers the question. Certainly anything that comes to the ombudsman's office is going to be treated with absolute confidentiality and will not be passed to third parties without the explicit permission of the individual. I think certainly in my experience now, the reception I've had from the war veterans...I speak the same language they do, so they're comfortable telling me like it is. I think the communication and the confidentiality are inherent in my office. They won't have a problem there.

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

I appreciate that.

Thank you very much for your dedication, and I look forward to maybe meeting you in the Okanagan if you see Mr. Tanner, and we'll chat again.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Now we're back to the Bloc Québécois and Mr. Perron for five minutes.

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

I could call you an electrical engineer, which is what I am too. There will no doubt be occasions when there are good currents between us, but there could also be sparks, which might cause a short circuit.

Words like “independence” resonate like a song in the ears of a Bloc member and Québécois. I very much appreciate your presentation this morning. I believe in your sincerity. I think you're going to do everything in your power to do your job well. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt. Even though the benefit of the doubt is not a very popular concept among veterans, I'm nevertheless going to give it to you and wish you good luck. If I can help you do your job, I'll be pleased to add my two bits.

In view of all the problems that you'll be facing, your job won't be easy. I wish you good luck and I congratulate you.

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I believe that consultations will be as important for the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman as discussions with veterans and the complaints they will be submitting. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Thank you.

We're over to Ms. Guarnieri, with the Liberals, for five minutes.

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me add my voice to Gilles'. We have no doubt that you're sincere and that you have the best of intentions. But I for one am very disappointed to hear about the status they've ascribed to your position.

Essentially what I see is that your scope has been limited. The status of your position relative to the defence ombudsman impacts your role in matters that overlap between the two departments. After all the rhetoric this government has given in putting veterans first, the government has made the position of the ombudsman at Veterans Affairs a junior one. My personal feeling is that now that the government has created the role, they have to elevate you to the status the veterans deserve. I don't think it should be done at some place in the future; it should be done immediately.

Having said that, I have one last question to ask. To the issue of scope, could you relate the role you expect to play in improving the quality of care in the long-term care facilities around the country? Previously there were VAC employees who held varying titles, from ombudsman to quality care officers, in this regard. How do you intend to work with the existing internal monitoring roles within the department itself to deal with potential complaints arising from patient care? You're going to have to go through the entire bureaucratic maze. I wonder if you could share some insights as to how you think you're going to deal with this.

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chair, I might say, in all honesty, I consider the bureaucratic maze to be a little bit daunting, and I couldn't get into specifics on how we might challenge that. That's why, to my mind, having a senior, experienced bureaucrat who understands how bureaucracies work, and whom I can bully and lean on, can assist me in cutting through the red tape. Certainly the long-term care facilities are something I have reviewed in the past. I'll be visiting Ste. Anne's Hospital tomorrow. It is a concern.

I think my biggest ally is, first of all, the credibility I have as a veteran myself, and also, once again, the public notoriety. It's my full intention, if I may use a bit of a crass term, to exploit that and to be the voice of veterans, to be one with the veterans.

I might add, regarding the rank, that I've never throughout my career.... I stayed in the infantry because I like a fight, and I certainly don't feel that is going to hinder my ability to identify problems or “front up” to the desk that the ombudsman fronts up to. It might be the perception of the person on the other side of the desk as to the stature of the position, but I fully intend to make the most of the next three years, to be heard and to pay attention to detail.

I can make no promises as to how much I'll be able to accomplish, because, once again, I feel the whole red tape thing and the bureaucracy to be a bit daunting, but I would submit that even if my accomplishments are nowhere near my expectations or desires, every step will be in the right direction and will be for improving the lives and well-being of our veterans. That's what I'm committed to in the next three years.

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

I certainly like your fighting spirit. This committee is here to assist you in achieving your mandate and your purpose. I predicted earlier that this committee might become home for you, and I have a feeling my predictions may come true.

Of course, we'd love to have you back when you've had time to digest the full spectrum of your mandate and sized up what you're up against.

Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

At this stage, committee members, we have some more spots available, but I think we've exhausted the questions, unless I see any people wishing to...? Okay.

We have other business to deal with potentially, with a notice of motion from Mr. St. Denis.

At this stage, Colonel Stogran, I would like to thank you very much for presenting to us today. I was touched by your mission, buddy, self motto. I was very impressed as well that you wanted to go and visit our First World War veteran, Mr. Babcock, the oldest surviving one we have, I'm sure. We certainly don't have anyone left from the Boer War or anything like that. So I was impressed by that.

My favourite politician of all time was Augustus or Octavius. He honoured the veterans of Rome tremendously, and many of his efforts brought stability to the Roman Empire. Anyhow, I think your role is very important and it's good.

I'll offer this to you as well. Thanks for coming today. The notice of motion, if Mr. St. Denis wishes to bring it forward, is very relevant. So I would say even though you're a witness, you're welcome to hang around for it, if he....

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

Mr. Chairman, if the colonel would be willing to stand by for five minutes, I don't think it'll take longer than a few minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

You'll learn something in the process.

We're going to take a brief couple of minutes for people to say hello to him and all those sorts of things.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

The next point of business is to deal with the notice of motion. I hope whatever you have to say subsequent to that will--

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

One must always invite her--

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

I don't know what you're talking about, Mr. Stoffer. I'm going to treat that as a point of order until I rule on it.

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

On a point of order, then, the ombudsman was here, and it was great to see him. He also brought his director of communications, Julie Harris, who is over there. She'll be the one who most of us will probably interact with.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

I'll rule that's not a point of order, but you've said it. I believe it was a point of debate.

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

She is a reservist and serves her country as well, so there you go.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

All right. We have a notice of motion, and it's based on one of our last meetings. It's Brent St. Denis' motion. I guess it's technically a motion now because it was a notice of motion at the last meeting. Here it is:

That the recently appointed first Veterans Affairs Ombudsman be sent a copy of the Veterans Affairs Committee testimony of the November 27th, 2007 meeting during which witnesses Jenifer Migneault and her husband Claude Rainville provided a case study in how difficult it seems for veterans diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder to access services. And further that at some appropriate time, as soon as possible after his office has been established and he considers their testimony, the Ombudsmen be asked to offer his comments and possible recommendations.

Mr. St. Denis said it was a good way to get the ball rolling, so I'll turn the floor over to him.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think all of us were very impressed with the courage of the couple who appeared on Tuesday. In a way they are representative of many veterans and their families who have dealt with the red tape and lack of timeliness in their dealings with Veterans Affairs, or DND in this case. While I believe the public service does its best, there are systemic issues that need to be dealt with.

I think it would be a way to thank the couple for appearing, that what they said was important enough that we have asked the ombudsman to look at the testimony, and that in due course, without any undue pressure on him or his office, which is in evolution, that they look at this as a terrible example of what it's like for some veterans to deal with the department. Particularly as the husband in this case is dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder, for people like him, red tape and timeliness are even more important. It's bad enough that you have a leg injury, but if it's a mental injury, then I think those concerns add to the injury. If it was just a leg injury, it wouldn't add to the injury, but in this case the mental injury does.

I want to pass a couple of grammatical corrections to the clerk, but I won't bother the committee with those minor details.

I'd like to move this motion. It's our first, and I presume, as a committee, we can make references to the ombudsman. He will do what he sees fit with any recommendation or reference from us, but to get the ball rolling, something we've heard more than once, I thought we could pass that testimony on to the ombudsman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Thank you.

Monsieur Perron.

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

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move an amendment to Mr. St. Denis' motion.

I'd like to delete what follows the words “diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder” and replace it with “psychological injury”. The words “post-traumatic stress disorder” could be put in parentheses. That disorder is an injury due to a military operation, in the same respect as the amputation of an arm or leg. It is a psychological injury. Rather than use the term “post-traumatic stress disorder”, which scares everyone, we should call a spade a spade.

I would like to hear my colleagues' comments on the subject.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

I think it's considered a friendly amendment by Mr. St. Denis.

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

Peter mentioned a possible friendly amendment as well.