Veterans Affairs Committee on Oct. 26th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I'm going to call this meeting to order.

I know we're a couple of minutes early. Before we start the meeting, I think our camera crew all know there will be no filming during the proceedings.

Welcome, everyone, to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, meeting number 25, and pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), a briefing from the Veterans Ombudsman with respect to the activities of his office.

Our witness today is from the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman, Patrick B. Stogran, Veterans Ombudsman.

Welcome, sir. Would you would like to start your presentation, please?

[Colonel, Retired) Patrick Stogran (Veterans Ombudsman, Office of the Veterans Ombudsman]

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to take this opportunity to thank the committee for allowing me to make one more appearance before the end of my term as the Veterans Ombudsman.

I was invited to appear before the committee to explain the activities of the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman.

I would also like to use this occasion to reflect upon lessons learned in the almost three years that I have served as Canada's first Veterans Ombudsman.

For example, in the recent case of the Dyck family, I firmly believe that the way Brian, Natali, and little Sophi Dyck were mistreated illustrates everything that is contemptible and wrong about the way Veterans Affairs Canada treats our veterans and their families.

Brian Dyck served in the Canadian Forces for more than 10 years, especially during the first Gulf war.

In a subsequent career as an Ottawa city police officer, he fell victim to ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease, a fatal disease whose cause is unknown today.

The United States government has determined that people who have served in their military have a much higher propensity for early-onset ALS than the general population. The chances of military personnel who served in the first Gulf War contracting early-onset ALS are even greater.

The statistical evidence is so compelling that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has ruled that any military person who served in the Gulf War who contracts ALS will immediately receive full benefits. If Bryan Dyck had served in the U.S. forces, their DVA would have launched immediately to support him and his family.

Not so in Canada. To the contrary, in fact, in a letter dated May 27, 2010, the deputy minister of Veterans Affairs Canada went to great lengths to describe why our Canadian system does not support veterans who contract early-onset ALS.

The Office of the Veterans Ombudsman recognized the reasons were completely fallacious, reflecting not the letter of the law as it was intended to support our veterans, but overly restrictive policies and practices deliberately imposed by senior bureaucrats and central agencies to preserve the public purse. The Office of the Veterans Ombudsman therefore undertook to ensure that all Canadians shared the Dyck family's great sorrow and hardship as Brian died a slow and painful death before their very eyes.

I also wanted Canadians to witness first-hand how Veterans Affairs Canada was cheating the Dyck family out of the veterans’ services and benefits they deserved. At the same time, we urged the family to have the department's decision reviewed by the Veterans Review and Appeals Board.

Here is a quick chronology. The Office of the Veterans Ombudsman petitioned the Veterans Review and Appeals Board to expedite the Dycks' hearing, which they did on September 8; the Prime Minister intervened on Friday, September 17, pledging to provide help to Canadian war veterans fighting this deadly disease; the board rendered a decision in favour of the Dycks on Monday, September 20, although they reported to Global News they had made their decision before the Prime Minister's announcement; Brian Dyck died tragically on October 8; and on October 15, the Minister of Veterans Affairs Canada announced that Canadian veterans diagnosed with ALS will no longer have to fight for health and financial benefits.

Several issues are particularly disturbing in this case.

First, the deputy minister herself justified the decision to deny the Dycks their benefits. She explained that the statistical evidence in the U.S. studies is not sufficient proof in Canada. Paraphrasing her rationale, she argued that our adjudication process requires that a veteran either display symptoms of ALS while in an operational theatre or be able to prove a direct relationship to military service. However, when the case came under serious scrutiny, the board readily reversed the department's decision, based on the findings of those very studies. This demonstrates how truly arbitrary and susceptible to undue influence the system is.

Second, had the department applied the “benefit of the doubt” clause as it was intended, they would have approved the Dycks' application in the first place. Promoting this case as an intervention on behalf of veterans suffering from ALS conceals the reality that many thousands of veterans continue to be disadvantaged by their excessively high burden of proof. The minister's announcement on October 15 was self-serving and cosmetic, demonstrating a preference to mask the symptoms of a severely diseased system rather than bite the bullet and effect substantive change that, once and for all, will ensure our veterans will be treated fairly.

Mr. Chairman, I have been asserting since my press conference on August 17 that the culture of Veteran Affairs Canada and the Veterans Review and Appeal Board has to be changed, and this case is clear proof that it does.

Up until now, I have placed the blame for the poor treatment of our veterans squarely on the shoulders of senior bureaucrats. While I am more than committed than ever to the substance of my accusation, parliamentarians are also deserving of the shame for the shoddy treatment of our veterans.

What we are witnessing today are some very good lessons in very poor leadership. Leadership is not a position. It's the relationship with followers that is defined by trust, confidence, and loyalty. The leader of a group of lost children trying to find their way out of the woods is not the child at the front of the line. The leader is the child with an idea of how to get out of the woods and the courage to try. A leader without vision, and the moral courage to pursue that vision, is nothing but a manager.

Shame on Veterans Affairs Canada for preferring to manage this crisis they find themselves in and maintain the status quo. Shame on Veterans Affairs Canada for blaming the rank and file for the deplorable way our veterans and their families are treated.

Veterans, departmental staff, and board members need leaders they can trust and have confidence in, leaders with a vision of how to fix this terrible system and the courage to challenge the institutional rot and obstructionism. The insurance company culture of denial must be forever eradicated from Veterans Affairs Canada and the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.

In case you do not have a vision to initiate enduring change in the culture of these organizations, today I will offer you my priority to-do list.

First, as we speak, members of the CF and the RCMP are sacrificing their lives for the government agenda, yet veterans have very little influence on the system that looks after them. Relationships with the major associations are superficial at best.

Therefore, veterans deserve dedicated representation inside the machinery of government. The government should legislate the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman so that parliamentarians cannot exert undue influence and bureaucrats cannot manipulate or obstruct it. I have proposed a drafting instruction, which is included at flag three of my presentation.

Second, the standard of proof that the department and the Veterans Review and Appeal Board expect veterans to meet is interpreted as per the balance of probabilities in civil tort. This is wrong. Legislation intends a much lower standard in the so-called benefit of the doubt. A more accurate interpretation is enclosed at flag four, based on much of the writings of this report I have beside me, the Woods committee report, which goes into a great deal of depth on the philosophy about the way we have treated and should be treating our veterans.

Third, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board is the only federal tribunal that fails to make its decisions public. Therefore, it should be directed to start publishing its decisions forthwith, and former decisions should be admissible as evidence in the appeals process.

Fourth, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board currently employs the same staff for both reviews and appeals. This collective approach lends itself to undue influence and potential bias. Therefore, the board should be compelled to have dedicated and separate review members and appeal members.

Fifth, veterans who wish to appeal board decisions before the Federal Court must do so at their own expense. The Bureau of Pensions Advocates should be empowered to represent select cases in the Federal Court when it is felt there is potential to serve the greater good.

Sixth, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board has been selective in how it adheres to decisions of the Federal Court. They should be compelled to conform to those decisions that are advantageous to veterans and their families.

Seventh, the department's capacity to conduct research is very limited and has had little impact on improving the treatment of our veterans. Veterans Affairs Canada should therefore be directed to be more proactive in effecting research that benefits the veterans community by partnering with other organizations and by adopting research conducted by allied nations.

Eighth, the government's commitment to keeping veterans programs and services current and relevant is simply woeful. Therefore, the department must be mandated to actively and frequently update programs and, when required, to urge the government of the day to make amendments that reflect leading-edge knowledge, best practices, and lessons learned, to advantage veterans and their families.

Ninth, the department's aversion to taking risks is excessive, and the control measures they employ cause an unacceptably poor standard of service for veterans. Therefore, Veterans Affairs Canada should be compelled to decentralize decision-making to the levels and locations where it will best advantage veterans and applicants.

Tenth, departmental adjudicators will not communicate directly with veterans and applicants to ensure that applications are accurate and complete, which causes unacceptable turnaround times, confusion, and wasted effort. Therefore, Veterans Affairs Canada should be directed to engage directly with veterans and applicants, as is the practice with other service providers of government.

Eleventh, the inefficiencies in the system can cause the adjudication process to literally take years, but the retroactivity upon approval is limited. Government should mandate that retroactivity be applicable to the date of first application.

In conclusion, these are only a start. They are some positive steps towards destroying the insurance company culture that fails to fulfill the obligation of the people and Government of Canada towards the veterans who have served this country so well and to their families.

These are measures that the government of the day can effect with a sweep of the hand, in the same way that it recently injected $2 billion into the system. Without substantive and enduring cultural changes to the system that mistreats our veterans, however, any promises of improvement are as shallow as Brian Dyck's final breaths.

Merci.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We will start questions with Ms. Duncan.

You have seven minutes, please.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before I begin, I want to thank the Veterans Ombudsman for his service to our country as a soldier, for his time and effort in coming today, and for his service in raising veterans' issues across the country.

I also want to express my condolences to the Dyck family and to recognize all of our veterans.

Sir, what would be your top three issues, in order of importance, that this committee should tackle to improve the quality of life of our veterans?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

I would have to reflect on the priorities as I presented them. First and foremost, the veterans and their families need and deserve a legislated ombudsman who can cross departmental boundaries and enter into any discussions in the Privy Council Office or Treasury Board Secretariat that involve veterans, just to keep the system honest. That's by far the most important priority.

Second, looking at my list of priorities, I think they have to tackle the department's approach to its business being that of an insurance company, to not being proactive in trying to improve the treatment of our veterans. They're very reactive in every respect, from the requirement for veterans to self-identify what they might be entitled to when they retire through to improving benefits, such as those for Agent Orange. Where the Institute of Medicine in the United States has increased the number of maladies associated with Agent Orange, they did nothing to try to push the system to increase the number here in Canada.

Finally, on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, I simply find it shocking that I, as an infantry officer, would sit down with senior management within that department, including lawyers, and point out to them blatant errors in principles of natural justice. You've heard some of them here today.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you.

I know that the members of this committee, like all Canadians, are shocked by the outrageous treatment of Sean Bruyea and want to ensure that these privacy breaches never occur again. In your opinion, what is the best way of investigating while protecting the health and privacy of our veterans?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I would defer that to the Privacy Commissioner. I recognize that in the so-called Veterans Bill of Rights I am presumably mandated to investigate complaints regarding the privacy of veterans; however, I would say, first of all, that the so-called bill of rights is not a bill and it doesn't offer me any executive authority to do things that the Privacy Commissioner is actually mandated to do.

I've met with the Privacy Commissioner and we've discussed the role the office would play. We would simply be a referral agency to allow the commissioner to do her work.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you.

Sir, we are bringing our men and women home in 2011. Numerous concerns have been levelled at VAC and my concern is that the department is not meeting the demand today. How can it meet the demands of new veterans returning from Afghanistan? What action would you recommend that this committee undertake to ensure that VAC is prepared for their return?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chairman, I think once again I'd have to reflect on my comments.

First, I think the culture within the Veterans Review and Appeal Board and the department must be changed, and it would not be difficult at all, with direction from the top, to do so in the short term. Likewise, the Veterans Ombudsman should be a veteran himself or herself so that he or she can relate to veterans and that position should be established as a matter of urgency. I have provided an outline drafting instruction that based on my experience over the last three years and the professional advice of my staff, I think would satisfy an imperative that veterans are looked after.

Finally, the new Veterans Charter has to be changed--urgently. I will go back to the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman's position vis-à-vis the new Veterans Charter, and I will once again say that the revision of the new Veterans Charter should follow four principles. It should be timely. It should be comprehensive. It should be transparent, because so many people have a stake in the outcome of this. Finally, and very importantly, it should be retroactive.

As it stands right now, the promise of $2 billion--by the advice that has been provided to me--won't come into effect until 2011, when we are presumably moving away from a combat role in Afghanistan. Also, it has been pointed out that those benefits will not be retroactive, so those troops that need it the most will be excluded from those types of benefits. I would just say finally I have no confidence that the system would ever allow those benefits to get down to our troops.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Sir, in your opinion, what immediate action should the minister take to address OSIs, particularly PTSD, such as investments in awareness, outreach, and suicide prevention, hiring more mental health professionals, and improving care and treatment. Also, once veterans have a diagnosis, what needs to be done to make it easier to get support?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chairman, that's a huge question. I have expressed to the minister my own view that Ste. Anne's should be turned into a national centre of excellence for mental health issues. It's a facility that has huge potential.

I think by being proactive, as I have suggested in my opening remarks regarding research to the advantage of veterans, we could explore all sorts of mental health issues, and perhaps with the focus group of the Canadian Forces and veterans, we could identify ways of avoiding stress injuries and dealing with stress injuries, things such as depression and post-traumatic stress that affect the general Canadian public.

I think it's about an attitudinal change on the part of the department and also revisiting the whole idea of how Ste. Anne's itself works into the system of OSIs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. André, please.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Good afternoon, Mr. Stogran, welcome to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. Of course, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I would like to congratulate you for having served Canada and also for the work you have done as a veterans ombudsman in conditions that do not seem to have been very easy.

I also had a question about the confidentiality of the files. However, you replied that this was not your responsibility. Nevertheless, it is a concern. You have surely heard about it, to the extent that not only Sean Bruyea but also a nurse, Louise Richard, said that, in fact, several people had consulted their medical files. You even said that your file had been consulted more than 400 times by officials of the department. Thus, it really is a serious matter.

If you cannot reply on behalf of the other people concerned, could you tell us if you think it fair that officials consulted your private files more than 400 times? In your opinion, was all this related to strictly administrative matters, or was there some other reason? Have you any views on this?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chairman, I can only speculate on that. Suffice it to say that there were individuals identified on that list of 400 who had no business looking into my file.

At the time, I presumed that it was just the curiosity of people who had access to the files and were interested in finding out who their ombudsman was, but since the revelations from Mr. Bruyea's case, I have some degree of concern that the reasons may have been more insidious.

The bottom line, from my perspective, is that I have nothing to hide. I make it very clear how, when, and where I received my so-called operational stress injury. From a personal perspective, I have no great concerns.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

I simply drew a parallel with the case of Mr. Sean Bruyea who alleges that attempts were made to discredit him because of his criticism of the new Veterans Charter, especially with regard to the issue of the lump sum payment and compensation. I had a question. You also voiced criticism regarding the lump sum payment during your mandate. You said: "[...] with regard to the lump sum payment, it is an extremely contentious issue. I said that I believed that it was wrong to give someone a lump sum payment."

Thus, you have stated your opposition to this measure. I believe that it is fair to make this criticism because an ombudsman must necessarily advance the interests of the Department of Veterans Affairs and make sure that the services to the veterans are improved. He must constantly voice criticism in order to help the progress of various files. In this sense, you have done an excellent job. Thus, you voiced criticism.

You also mentioned in your report that there were endless delays in the treatment of applications for compensation because of complicated red tape. Consequently, this is often harmful to the quality of services delivered to veterans. This is not necessarily because we do not have enough personnel, but sometimes there is a lack of will to respond to the needs.

You criticized certain measures taken by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Do you believe that this has anything to do with the fact that your file was consulted many times in an attempt to discredit you?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chairman, once again I would love to be able to give a straight answer, but I am in the process now of.... I have submitted a privacy complaint. I hope to find out conclusively who was involved in looking into my file and particularly for what purpose.

In terms of how it may be used, I was publicly admonished by the minister on a couple of occasions. I was privately admonished and it was suggested that people have accused me of lying. I've been called to the Privy Council Office and told that I report to the deputy minister. Suffice it to say there's nothing in my file that would cause me concern that it might have affected my ability to do my job for the veterans.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

All right. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Ms. Mathyssen, for five minutes.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Stogran, for being here. I also want to thank you for coming to London at the end of September to meet with veterans in my community. They are most grateful and wanted me to extend their gratitude to you publicly.

The committee members have asked you about your personal information and how it may or may not have been used by Veterans Affairs. Of course, we've heard the recent apology to Mr. Sean Bruyea. I'm wondering if that apology is enough. Is it enough for the minister and the government to stand up and say that “this is unacceptable, we did a bad thing”? Or is it necessary now to have a full inquiry? I think that has been alluded to, but do we need a full inquiry into this and perhaps the situation surrounding other complainants?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chairman, first of all, as the Veterans Ombudsman, I don't feel it is my place to comment on the action taken by the minister and the government of the day. That's up to voters to determine whether it's adequate and if, indeed, all of the other departments are squeaky clean and conforming to our privacy laws.

I will say once again that if the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman were legislated and the deputy minister weren't in a position to control the information that my successor will have access to, then there is less likelihood that incidents of this nature will be allowed to take place.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Have you had the opportunity to discuss with anyone your belief that the office should be legislated, that there should be rules, and that the mandate should give the ombudsman very clear abilities and powers?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chairman, yes, in fact, at some confidential meetings I made it very clear that my first priority to offer veterans the enduring and substantive change they deserve is to have representation inside government. I've urged not only a legislated ombudsman, but also perhaps a similar arrangement to what the Canadian Forces have within the Privy Council Office, where, for national security issues, there is a cell inside that office.

Because of the commitment our veterans make to serve the government of the day and the sacrifices they make, I think that would be appropriate. Unlike after World War II and the Korean War, there is no representation by veterans inside government. I think it might it might be appropriate to have such a cell for veterans, who are indeed public servants and bound by all of the constraints and restrictions of public servants.

Right now, I will say that the relationship of the department with the major associations is superficial, because once the door closes, much like it is for the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman, they are at the mercy of what the department wants them to hear or know.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

A short question? Go ahead.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

One of the key concerns that I hear from veterans and peacekeepers in my riding is about the lack of support for veterans.

I'll give you an example. You were talking about Ste. Anne's Hospital. In my riding, there is a plan to close 63 hospital beds at Parkwood Hospital, and these veterans and peacekeepers quite frankly feel forgotten. They feel that when their turn comes and they need the care, there won't be that sensitive care provided by an experienced staff such as that at Parkwood.

I wonder if you could comment on that.