Veterans Affairs Committee on May 27th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. Bonjour à tous.

We're actually going to be going back to our G-8 study after this week—I believe next week. But at this moment now we're here. One of our members has moved a motion and asked the ombudsman to be present, and of course Colonel Pat Stogran is here and present, so we'll follow through with that.

That person isn't here, which we regret, but they have a champion of a representative.

Mr. Stogran, you have opening remarks. Is that correct?

[Col Pat Stogran, Veterans Ombudsman, Office of the Veterans Ombudsman]

Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I think you've been before this committee enough that you know we'll allow you to open, and then we'll go through the usual rotation of questions.

[Col Pat Stogran]

Right, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

So please be my guest and go ahead.

[Col Pat Stogran]

Thank you very much, sir.

Thank you for the invitation to appear before you again. My last appearance was in November of 2007, a mere two weeks after I was appointed to the position of Veterans Ombudsman. A great deal has transpired since then. Suffice it to say, however, that recent events have reinforced a concern I have been harbouring for some time now and working hard to avoid. What was promoted to the Canadian public as an ombudsman for veterans is being treated by the department more like an internal administrative complaints section.

In the past year, we have received over 8,000 contacts from our stakeholders in the Veterans Community, and opened almost 2,000 files, of which half remain pending action. We have successfully intervened on behalf of veterans literally hundreds of times on issues that we could resolve in a timely manner. At the same time, we have gained insight into the more complex systemic issues that are frustrating veterans and we are now finally at a point where we have some resources to dedicate towards investigating and reporting on them.

The following words are not my own:

In order to complete those investigations in an objective, impartial and thorough manner, access is required to all information, including people and documents, which are considered necessary in order to complete the investigation. As well, as a delegate of the Minister, I must have access to the same documents and information as the Minister would have if he were carrying out those investigations himself. Any suggestion that the [department] should have the discretion to determine what information was required for this office to complete an investigation is simply not reasonable. This was certainly not the intent when the Office of the Ombudsman was created. This practice restricts our independence and impartiality in the conduct of investigations.

Those are the words of the DND/CF Ombudsman in April of 2007. However, they reflect exactly the kinds of challenges I have faced since coming into this office as the so-called ombudsman. So far, the role of Veterans Ombudsman has been nothing like what I expected of an:

independent, impartial public official with the authority and responsibility to receive, investigate or informally address complaints about government actions, and, when appropriate, make findings and recommendations, and publish reports.

This is the definition from the United States Ombudsman Association's governmental ombudsman standards, dated October 14, 2003, but it reflects a common understanding of what an ombudsman does.

The order in council that created our office states that I report directly to and am accountable to the minister. Despite this, the machinery of government in the Privy Council Office advised me recently that if I had a better understanding of the Westminster style of government, I would understand that I am actually accountable to the deputy minister in the conduct of my duties.

That might explain why the deputy minister would feel empowered to restrict my access to certain types of information, thereby “avoiding circumstances which would limit my abilities for public commentary.” This amounts to the department announcing its intention to control the messaging of the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman. This is not acceptable.

Once again, the DND ombudsman has asserted the commonly held belief that “the organization that an ombudsman is mandated to review should not have the power to determine what documents an ombudsman requires or has a right to review during the course of an investigation.”

Recent incidents regarding homeless veterans characterize my suggestion that our office is not being treated as one would expect an ombudsman should be. The department all but ignored my advice that they were not doing enough to address the specific needs of homeless veterans. They have deliberately withheld departmental information from our office. When my assertions captured the interest of the media, I was personally maligned. It was as if it came as a surprise that I would make public what I perceived to be systemic failings of the department.

Notwithstanding, I am now more committed than ever to encouraging the department to correct systemic problems with the way our veterans are being treated and to conducting myself in the way I think the Canadian public expects of a so-called ombudsman, in the truest sense of the word. Ultimately, it is the Canadian public to which we should all be accountable in the end.

That concludes my remarks.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Stogran.

I apologize to the committee. I should have mentioned before Mr. Stogran's remarks that we have a little bit of business. With your indulgence, we'll complete our questions by 5:15 so that we have enough time to do business before the bells for votes tonight.

Do I have consensus on that?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Good.

Let's go to the first round of questioning.

Madam Sgro, you have seven minutes.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Colonel Stogran, welcome to the committee.

We have wanted an opportunity to discuss various issues with you for a while now. Once you made some of your concerns public, there was a great desire by those of us on the committee to get some answers to various issues you pointed out.

I must say that you're the second parliamentary officer who comes to mind who is having great difficulty, along with the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

You've been in this office for over two years now. Have you had these frustrations in trying to move forward on some of these files? You made reference to more than 8,000 contacts from stakeholders. Have you been frustrated from day one, or were you led to believe you would get information and support as time passed?

[Col Pat Stogran]

There has been a wide variety of frustrations since day one.

In the first instance, learned advice was given to me by people who had opened a similar office that I should keep the doors closed for a year and open them up when I was fully staffed and had my procedures in place. But because the veteran community had been waiting for a veterans' ombudsman for some time, I decided we would go ahead, continue taking complaints from the veterans, and do whatever we could to facilitate change while we were setting up the office. I would say, as a metaphor, we were changing the tire on a moving car.

We learned as we went along. I encountered all sorts of goodwill among the rank and file of Veterans Affairs Canada. We've been very successful at resolving what I would refer to as lower-level issues--mediating decisions at the lower levels among the decision-makers in about 500 cases.

We are only now starting to venture into the onerous process of hiring within the public service, and that is the cause of another one of my frustrations. We are only now starting to venture into some of the more complex, systemic issues that impact a wide number of veterans in the community. By correcting them, we would be effecting long-term and enduring change, to the benefit of our veterans. This is where we are still carving out our territory and identifying what processes we're going to use to effect change in the most timely manner.

Just to qualify that, I'm very cognizant of the relationship we should have with the department. In establishing our procedures, I do not want to put the department in a position where our workload slows down the progress they're making in programs that don't need to be addressed by us.

So the frustrations have been many on all sides.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Why has it been so difficult to get the information you require from the department?

[Col Pat Stogran]

Mr. Chair, that is a very difficult question for me to address because I'm the one asking for the information, and there are a variety of reasons that are given that I can't quite comprehend from the other side of the table.

I think one of the issues that has been problematic is that within the order in council that describes my mandate, we are restricted from reviewing certain types of documentation, and there is a difference of opinion between our office and that of the department as to what the definition of “to review” is. It's rather complex, but if I can make it simple, we are prevented from reviewing documents such as legal judgments, court decisions, as well as legal advice to the department and decisions of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. The department views “to review” in the sense of “to have a look at”. We are prevented from having a look at a long list of things, including confidences of the Privy Council and internal legal decisions. If that were in fact true, the letter of the law in our mandate would prevent us from reading court judgments that are actually public information accessible to all.

So it's a mixing of apples and oranges. The definition of “to review” in both the Pension Act and the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act is “to hear, determine and deal with”, to challenge and to make comment on these types of things. We're not looking for that when it comes to confidences of the Privy Council or legal advice that the department is using to make decisions. What we're looking at is understanding the perspective not only of the veterans, the people on the ground who I spend most of my time talking to and working with, but we want to have a balanced impression. We want to understand the department's perspective on things. The advantage for me, and I think one of the ways we could have avoided this latest confrontation between my office and the department, is that if the department is forthcoming and proactive in sharing information and letting us know what actions they are taking when we are seized of issues such as the homeless veterans issue, then I could qualify my comments, without ever revealing the source of that qualification. But I will never compromise my integrity to the veterans by ignoring open source material or evidence that I am gathering on the ground. I will only temper it by what I know to be information that's within the department that is out of public view.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you, Colonel. Clearly, you care very much about the veterans and your desire to do a good job by them.

We had a presentation the other day from your staff member when we were in Charlottetown, and what was evident through all of the deck that we were presented with was that part of your job is the issue of the homeless veteran. The individual who we had all heard about in New Brunswick was an example. Throughout that document you reference that you don't want to see any veterans homeless and on the street. Well, I can assure you, none of us do either.

How would you suggest the department play a more active role in trying to ensure—whether that means visiting food banks or shelters—that veterans are getting the kind of support that they clearly deserve if they need it, so we don't find out that we have veterans who are resorting to food banks and living in shelters or are homeless altogether?

[Col Pat Stogran]

Mr. Chair, let me just comment on the Leave Nobody Behind campaign and the homelessness issue. That's really the tip of the iceberg. The Leave Nobody Behind campaign was originally intended as an economy of effort initiative that I would dovetail with my outreach across the country to try to identify the scope of the homeless problem, as a first step. But there are other people in the veterans' community who are slipping through the cracks, who should be addressed. I dare say, without a study to refute my suspicions and observations, it's a direct result of people serving in the military and in the RCMP. There are veterans who are incarcerated. We don't know how many or why. There are spouses who are being left behind by the system. It's another part of this Leave Nobody Behind campaign. For example, wives have approached me who have lived with significant others for years who are suffering from PTSD. In one case I know of, the veteran ended up committing suicide. That spouse is left to fend for herself, and her plight is a direct result, I would say, of service to our country.

There's also the VIP, which the members were briefed on.

Regarding the homeless, the first step would be to actually engage with the professionals who work in the homeless community. This is what I've been watching for; this is what I've been asking. As a first step, engage with the police forces across the country. These people interact with homeless veterans very often, and I have been led to believe by the police that there's a bit of an affinity between uniformed members. Once the homeless person realizes they're not being arrested and thrown in jail, they actually develop a relationship with the police force. So first is to reach out to the police forces across the country. Put Veterans Affairs posters where the homeless congregate, in the shelters. They're nonexistent today. It's a very simple measure.

Without exception, in every homeless shelter where I have spoken to staff, from directors right on down to people in the front lines, they're craving information about programs that Veterans Affairs might be able to provide to homeless veterans. Education sessions--an integration of the professional in the veterans' community with the professionals in these homeless shelters. The important thing is to understand that the needs of a homeless veteran are different from the average veteran. That's the nature of their being homeless.

Perhaps I could use a metaphor. I have a very good friend who worked for me in Afghanistan, who lost two legs--a double amputee. And the department has some tremendous systems to assist our physically wounded individuals, the double amputees. They're all there. So if I could use this as an analogy for the homeless, it's like saying to a double amputee, “We have all these in-home programs that you can use to make your life better. We'll provide you with home cleaning, cooking. We'll provide you with in-home physiotherapy. We'll provide you with in-home occupational therapy and in-home medical assistance.” Then the double amputee says, “Can I have a ramp or a lift to get into my house?”, and they say, “Once you get in there we'll look after you.” That's the problem with the homeless veteran. They don't have access. They live in a different world from the general population of veterans. So it's reaching out to that community and establishing a personal touch.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Colonel Stogran.

Thank you, Ms. Sgro.

Mr. Gaudet, for seven minutes, please.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Sir, when the committee met on several occasions to appoint an ombudsman, the Bloc Québécois, among others, was in favour of the latter being accountable to the House of Commons, like Ms. Sheila Fraser.

I don't want to play politics, because we usually don't do that in committee. However, it would seem that the main parties that are usually in power do not like having someone who is completely independent.

I know that the Bloc Québécois fought for this. We even met with the former ombudsman of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces, who resigned and who is now the provincial ombudsman for Ontario. In Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, we met with the ombudsman there, and it was the same thing. Pardon the expression, but he was working for the Sainte-Anne Hospital. Everyone got along well with him, because everyone reported to him.

My question is simple. You were appointed ombudsman so the government could say it had done the right thing, or something like that, perhaps to give it good conscience and allow it to say that now the ombudsman is appointed, everything will be fine, and all the problems will be settled. As I see it, the problems are not settled at all, at least not anymore than they were before. Am I right?

[Col Pat Stogran]

Mr. Chair, I apologize for not being comfortable enough to speak in French.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

That is not a problem, sir. We have interpreters and the system works very well.

[Col Pat Stogran]

On the question of my role, in the first instance, what I have learned in the last year and a half is what an ombudsman is and what an ombudsman contributes to an organization. I must say, I am a huge fan of the idea of an ombudsman. I do not necessarily agree that the position must be legislated, but there does have to be a degree of respect for the role if we are going to have an ombudsman. I would not begin to speculate as to the reason why the government would bring this position into being, and I must say there have been problems, particularly with the DND Ombudsman, that we have been experiencing in exactly the same vein.

What I find particularly discouraging is when we try to conduct ourselves on a professional level, and when I do report...and I spend an inordinate amount of time. I consider it my primary duty to integrate with the veterans' community, to understand it from the grassroots, and to report on it as I see it. I think I offer a service to government in that vein. I find it particularly disconcerting when I am publicly called insensitive, when people say that my actions pale in the extreme, when this relates to my not turning over the names of homeless veterans, protecting their privacy.

I have met enough homeless veterans in the past year and a half to know that they are very private people. Many times the people who are on the street are more private than the average citizen. I met one Second World War veteran who did not want to meet with me initially because he wanted his privacy. He was afraid that because I was coming from Veterans Affairs, the very little that he was collecting from Veterans Affairs was going to be taken away from him, and he wanted to maintain his privacy.

I was criticized publicly for not turning over the names and violating, not only the Privacy Act, but the confidentiality that the public expects of a person in a public office such as an ombudsman.

Once again, I think the role is extremely useful if it's treated in a professional manner. I would never expect to have an ombudsman who has the power of binding recommendations, because that being the case, the ombudsman becomes part of the problem.

Suffice to say, Mr. Chair, that I think the mandate as given to me is a workable one. So much is dependent on the personalities involved and the intent behind it, but I would never hazard to speculate what the intention was behind my office.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you.

According to the notes prepared by Michel, our analyst, you were recruited as a special adviser to the minister. Were you indeed recruited as such or as an ombudsman? Because in the notes, it states:

It opted to appoint a Veterans Ombudsman as a special adviser to the Minister of Veterans Affairs pursuant to the Public Service Employment Act.

Is this indeed how you were chosen? Because that would mean that you are simply an employee of the department, unless I am mistaken.

It would seem that I am putting you on the spot. If I reworded my question, you would perhaps prefer not to give me an answer, because of your position.

[Col Pat Stogran]

Mr. Chair, I'll answer the question.

From my research into the events that led to the establishment of this position, I understand that the position of a special adviser was actually administratively convenient; it was something that could be expedited to get somebody into the chair in a timely fashion. However, I do view my job as providing advice to the minister, and I don't feel that I'm compromising my independence by doing that. I would provide advice to any member of the government, based on what I observe, based on the perspective of the veterans.

I believe the two are actually complementary, if that answers the member's question.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Yes, you answered the question well.

However, from what you said earlier in your brief, it would appear that you are not entitled to certain reports, certain confidential information. That being said, you are an adviser but the information goes in only one direction, not two.

In reality, that was my question. You did answer correctly, but in reality, it is a one-way street only. You are an adviser to the minister, but the minister provides you with nothing, nor does the department. Indeed, I cannot talk about the minister, but the department can give you no results, it can give you nothing.

[Col Pat Stogran]

Mr. Chair, in essence I would have to agree. I cannot comprehend, nor can the private legal counsel whom we employed outside government, as well as my current legal advisor, who is a public servant, why we would not be privy to all departmental information. It's been argued that some departmental information may end up being protected under the Privy Council confidences. We're not only cleared for that type of material, but we're also charged with protecting that information. If anything, by offering us full and unfettered access to information, I can give a far more balanced assessment in providing the advice to n'importe qui of the situation as it pertains to veterans. Once again, my first instance is to understand the veteran's situation completely, but it has to be balanced by the information that's inside government. That's the only way I can give legitimate advice.

I dare say, in these recent incidents in the press, had we had complete access to information, things may not have unfolded as they did. It also depends on the government of the day taking the advice of the ombudsman who is offering it. As an example, we were on distribution for departmental notes, the preparation of question period notes that were going to the minister, and they came to our attention. We were on normal distribution at the time. I made the point to the department that if that advice goes to the minister, I will have to disagree, because they were embellishing the facts on the ground as I had seen them. The reaction was to remove us from the distribution list of the question period notes, not to examine the situation further or try to understand the perspective from the visits I had made on the ground. As much as I'm a fan of the ombudsman system, it very much depends.... To use an old cliché, it takes two to tango, in the absence of very specific legislation; it requires a professional relationship between the two parties.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Stogran.

Thank you, Mr. Gaudet.

Now, Mr. Harris, from the NDP for five minutes.