Veterans Affairs Committee on Oct. 26th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. McColeman.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Thank you.

I'll underscore the thanks that everyone else has been giving you in terms of the work you've done in organizing this office. It's a difficult job that you took on and you've done a very good job of it.

My question relates to some of the criticisms we've heard about seriously injured veterans and what they're getting under the new Veterans Charter. Recently Minister Blackburn announced $2 billion towards the betterment of those who are seriously injured, which means that a seriously injured veteran would receive a minimum of $58,000 a year in benefits. That's not counting the other non-monetary benefits and the lump sum that can go along with a serious injury.as you know.

It is mentioned in your presentation here, in a different context, I believe, from the pure context of trying to make things better, but do you think these are good changes for veterans?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would applaud the sense of urgency with which the elected government addressed some of the issues. I would certainly express a great deal of gratitude to the Canadians who expressed their outrage at some of the revelations that I had to make in order to get some of the new Veterans Charter issues on the table.

On the $2 billion, from my perspective, sir, once again, if we don't change the culture within the department and the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, I have absolutely no confidence that the money will get to where it's intended to go. I would submit that in my limited understanding of the terms and conditions of the amendments--once again, I say “my limited understanding” because I get my information on this from the media and I don't receive any privileged information internally--I would say that there are too many terms and conditions.

There are too many definitions that leave a huge amount of latitude to the writers of the regulations, policies, and practices to tighten down the screws such that the intended effect or the desired effect of these announcements will never be satisfied, let alone satisfied in time and in being retroactive to those people who have been severely disadvantaged because our government knowingly brought in flawed legislation. I would understand if all of the filters and screens of government had been used with the new Veterans Charter and our parliamentarians could put their hand on their heart and say, “We did our best for our veterans and on a go-forward basis we'll make changes and fix it for the future”.

But we knowingly brought in flawed legislation, and the people who are suffering are the people with missing legs, missing arms, and lives that have been completely disrupted. I'll go back to one of the principles that I feel should be addressed in this: retroactivity should go right back to the introduction of the new Veterans Charter.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

On a different topic, I'm interested in just the day-to-day or the usual schedules that you kept as the ombudsman in an effort to perhaps learn from and advise on the future work of ombudsmen. In your dealings with the ministers themselves--this would, I assume, be the case of Minister Thompson and Minister Blackburn--did you ever have a case or a time when they refused to meet with you, when they didn't answer your correspondence or address anything that you presented to them during your tenure?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chairman, in reflection, with Minister Thompson, I don't recall ever receiving any formal replies to anything. I may be mistaken on that, but I have to say, certainly in retrospect, that relationships were extremely strained at that point in time.

To Minister Blackburn's credit, when he took office, he took hold of the reins. Unlike his predecessor, with whom I'd have to make appointments several weeks in advance, he summoned me to his office the next day in order to talk about issues. The current minister has been much more proactive in responding to the observations that we bring up in the department.

Unfortunately, what comes to us from the minister's office, from the deputy minister, and from the department is just a regurgitation of exactly the things that we're trying to have redressed within the department. I used benefit of the doubt in one of those cases in point. ALS is another one where the response came back basically as “too bad, so sad”, that's the way it is.

I tried suggesting to both of the ministers that, much like the deputy minister is a voice that the minister has to rely on, the person right beside the deputy minister should be the ombudsman, giving the minister the ground truth. I explained that part of my job.

The rest of the time, sir, I was on the road communicating with veterans and looking into the department. I felt that I could give the minister a sober second look at some of the foolish answers, frankly, that were coming to things like benefit of the doubt and ALS.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

With that, time's up.

Is there someone else from the Conservatives?

Go ahead, please, Mr. Lobb.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Colonel. I'm sure there were times when you thought your position was thankless, but all the MPs here today seem pretty thankful for the work you've done.

As you're transitioning out of your current role, what plans do you have in place to help ease the transition for the new ombudsman?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chairman, first and foremost, I have to say that I have dissociated myself from many of the day-to-day operations within the office, because I feel that on August 17 I was not credible, if you will, to be dealing with the department and the people I've become so actively engaged against. So my director general of operations, Ms. Louise Wallis, who has been with me since the beginning, has been running the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman. I've really encouraged her and her director of strategic liaison, Colleen Soltermann, to take the reins and to ensure that they can really, as I would say, provide a right-seat ride to the incoming ombudsman.

I've also embarked on extensive lessons learned and I've included that in your package. It's what I'm referring to as a blueprint for the fair treatment of veterans. It has been hugely consulted right across the country. It's the accumulation of all of my lessons on the road with my town halls, as well as lessons that my investigators and my early-intervention analysts have had. We've brought this together and have done a public consultation that I hope will help. I'm also doing what in the military we'd call handover notes, which will provide a little insight.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

This is a good segue into my next question, believe it or not.

Under the blueprint here, in the “Method” section, you list all the different methods that you have. Do you think that part of the work of the ombudsman, or of the ombudsman's office, should include meeting with members of Parliament individually?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chairman, I do, absolutely. We were building that capacity, recognizing that we have a very small staff. I have to say that even with the briefing packages we've submitted we're punching above our weight to achieve that, but I very much feel that the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman is in a position not only to educate all parliamentarians on what we find through our good offices, but also to hear from parliamentarians and to learn from the constituents.

Mr. Stoffer has had me sitting in his office for four hours, teaching me things that I just didn't have the time to learn.

So “Yes, indeed” is the short answer.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I would suspect that if Mr. Stoffer had you in his office for four hours, he was teaching you things you wouldn't want to be learning either, if I know Mr. Stoffer.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

In all seriousness, I think it would be great if you would consider adding to your methods that idea of meeting with members of Parliament, because I honestly and truly think that the 308 members who are here most of the time are lobbyists and activists for veterans. The more information your office can have and provide and the more you work with us, the more I think you'll find that all parties will support that. It would be great if you could include that in your methods here.

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chairman, that's an excellent suggestion. I think it lends itself to the inclusiveness that I'm hoping to generate in that particular document, so we'll definitely put that on the list.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Go ahead, Mr. Rota.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Colonel, thank you for joining us today. It's a pleasure to have you here.

I don't normally sit on this committee, so I might ask some questions that are not quite as instructed as those from some of the other members. I was just going through your report and I was very impressed with the way you presented it. The 11 points, the 11 priorities that you've put forward, are very well defined. It's almost refreshing to read a report that you can look at the first time and see what has to be done jump out at you, so that you can say, okay, this is perfect. You can see what has to be done. It's very clear.

Has this report been submitted to...? I think the structure is that you report to the deputy minister, if I'm not mistaken, and not to the minister or the PMO. Am I correct?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, certainly the Privy Council Office suggested very strongly that was my reporting chain; however, on April 3, 2007 when the Prime Minister announced the formation of this office, he stated that it would operate at arm's length from government. So I feel that I'm a special adviser to the minister. I feel that's a very important role. But I don't feel any compulsion to report to the deputy minister.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Very good. Has the report you have submitted today been reported to the minister or to the PMO?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chairman, many of the points have certainly been presented to the department and/or to the minister. I couldn't comment on how current we are because, as I say, I have for all intents and purposes embarked on a campaign separate from the day-to-day running within the office. So I couldn't say.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

So the report we're looking at today hasn't been submitted.

[Col Patrick Stogran]

No. It was brought to the leadership level with a view to trying to get some of these things moving within the department.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

What do you mean by the leadership level? Do you mean this committee or--

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chairman, I'm referring to this committee and to the deputy minister. I think what's required right now is legislation for the mandate and a discussion within a learned body of people who can effect change. I think the 10 priorities, less the legislated mandate, are doable to a great extent just through ministerial direction.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

It seems that these points have been fairly well received at this end. The impression I'm getting is very positive. Have you received any feedback on the points that you said went individually to the minister's office or to the deputy minister's office? Was there any feedback? What kind of response did you get?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

No, Mr. Chair. Once again I've been very much divorced from that. Since the press conference on August 17, I have committed myself to the veterans. I have spent my time engaging Canadians to describe to them exactly what their sons and daughters and their brothers and sisters will be facing if they join the military and are wounded in the line of duty.

So I haven't been engaging the department. I must admit that since August 17 I haven't been engaging the minister, because I really haven't felt fit to be acting as an ombudsman.