Veterans Affairs Committee on Oct. 26th, 2010

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

Very good.

If I could just go on to another issue, I remember that when the Veterans Charter was first implemented, one of the concerns I had was the lump sum payment that comes out. What happens all too often is that veterans are injured and then are looking for an income stream to keep them going for a period of time, sometimes for life--and more often than not for life. They're broken, and it's a matter of getting back together again or trying to survive under the circumstances they've been exposed to, through really no fault of their own, but just as part of what they do.

Now, one of the concerns I had with a lump sum payment was that when someone gets a lump sum, the intent is for them to take the money, go off into private life, start up a business or invest it, and go on. Again, these people need help. I mean, these are our veterans, people who we have relied on, and people who are relying on us now. We're giving them a lump sum and sending them off.

That was my concern. It's almost like a buyout. You mentioned the insurance mentality. That was the concern I had. What I was told was that they would get financial advice when they got that money so that they would be able to invest it, so they would be able to do something. My concern was that, sure, but they might go out and buy a new truck, or buy a new car, or spend it on something that wouldn't be there for them down the road.

What experiences have you seen as far as a lump sum payment goes, as far as it goes in providing revenue or providing an income stream for the long term, for the lives of those veterans?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chairman, that's a very broad question. In my experience, particularly in my capacity as an ombudsman, because people come to me with their problems, more often than not the problem is that the money has disappeared. It has vaporized.

Bearing in mind that there are other financial aspects to the new Veterans Charter and that they should be viewed comprehensively, there's one principle that I feel is very important in this--I don't like talking about lump sum versus pension, because I don't think it's that black and white--and that is peace of mind, and it's differentiation, in that every veteran is different.

You can combine the type of disability they might have when they're leaving with the culture shock, and I can say personally that there is a huge culture shock when life no longer is a battle drill and you have to suddenly adapt to normal civilian life. If you add an operational stress injury on top of that and then give a young soldier a lump sum, which is for pain and suffering, the best way to get rid of pain and suffering is.... Well, we all know what young soldiers would like to do.

So we should be looking at it from that perspective. No soldier coming home from operations, particularly one who has been injured, is going to sit down and take financial counselling when they have a mitt full of money.

They have to relate to the kind of people who join the Canadian Forces.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Mayes, please.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Stogran.

I'm the only one of the committee members here who was here in 2006 when we first started down the road of the Veterans Charter. I was very optimistic. I felt it was an action that needed to be started. I felt, maybe as you do now, that veterans were not given the respect they deserved or were not taken care of by the Government of Canada and a grateful nation.

But we had witnesses in during the time that we put together that charter, and the stakeholders told us what the needs were, and we incorporated those in the charter. We worked hard to put something together that was beneficial to the veterans. We knew it wasn't going to be perfect, but we had to get started. On the criticism of the charter, quite frankly, I have a little bit of a problem with it, because we did start it and we got the ball rolling. You can criticize it, but at least you have something to criticize now.

It was the same with the ombudsman. We decided that we needed an ombudsman to deal as an advocate for veterans because we felt they were not getting a fair shake, as you said, from the department. We put together your position and I was very optimistic; I thought it was a good thing for veterans. I really did have a heart to help veterans.

So there are issues here that we're learning about, and I thank you for the input and, as my colleague said, for the great suggestions you have now forwarded about how we can improve what we started. But ultimately we did start, and we had the best intentions for helping veterans. I think everyone on this committee is committed to continuing this, and that's why you're here today, sir.

One of the things you mentioned during your testimony was that you didn't really have a reporting person or connection to the deputy minister, the minister, or the Prime Minister's Office. I find that in a job description when I'm hired: I have somebody to answer to and to whom I bring my reports and my concerns. I find it difficult to believe that you didn't have something in writing that gave you the job description and said who you would report to and what your duties were as the ombudsman.

Was there anything such as a formal draft of a job description or your duties and your role as ombudsman and who you reported to?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chair, the only thing I have is the order in council, which basically told me what to do: I was a special adviser to the minister. There was no requirement for any kind of reporting, short of my annual report, which the minister would table at his convenience in Parliament. The other constraint was the requirement that the minister was to be in possession of other reports for 60 days before we would publicize them.

I might also add that within my mandate the direction in the order in council is to resolve things at the lowest level. As I have said many times, I spent two and a half years trying to build trust and confidence, working with the deputy minister and senior management to resolve things. I didn't want to bring everything to the minister. I felt that should be a last-ditch effort.

It wasn't until three or four months ago that I realized that in all of the promises—that veterans are first and that they'd do anything to support me—I had been duped and that I'd failed my veterans in terms of the escalation of forces I would use to ultimately go to the minister and have some of these issues addressed.

Had I had another term, there's no doubt in my mind that I would not have done what I did on August 17, because I recognize that you can't turn a bureaucracy on a dime: I have worked at National Defence headquarters.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Do I have more time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Make it very short.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Further to that, one of the thrusts of the charter was to try to encompass not only the veterans but their families, and to make sure the spouses, the children, and the widows were taken care of. I think there were obviously some advances in that type of benefit, because $750 million was dedicated to those types of benefits. Could you comment on whether that part of the charter has worked?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to reflect the optimism that the member had regarding the new Veterans Charter and the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman. In my early days, I praised the collaborative approach that parliamentarians took to getting the new Veterans Charter through.

What has been painful for me is that the reports of the special needs advisory group, as well as those of a special committee on the new Veterans Charter that was convened by the department, were lying dormant within the department. I can say categorically—first person singular once again, point-blank range—that there were no initiatives within the department to fix the new Veterans Charter. That is the fundamental error with this.

We will see by 2011 if some of these quick fixes ever come into fruition, if the very people who have sacrificed their lives, and I don't mean by dying, because I consider dying to be the penultimate sacrifice.... The ultimate sacrifice is having to come home, start a new life, and burden your family with your disability. Those people are not being covered by it.

Quite frankly, I've lost my optimism about the mandate as it was written in an order in council. I've seen the paperwork that led up to the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman, and I can only suggest that it was watered down and hijacked by bureaucrats who did not want to be checked into.

The office should be of deputy minister status. To me, it's an insult to veterans that their ombudsman would be at the level I am at right now, which was lower than a colonel when I came into this job. I took the job because I'm an optimist and I took it for the veterans. But in the future, this office deserves much more status for the sake of the veterans.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Ms. Mathyssen, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your candour.

I have been listening carefully, and it seems to me, in looking at your brief and listening to what you say, that certainly a number of things disturb me about the attitude towards veterans. In some ways, they've become a political prop: we love our veterans on November 11. I say that because of the reference to safeguarding the public purse and some of the language in regard to the benefit of the doubt and the fact that veterans are not being given that benefit.

There is the treatment of widows, which you've talked about. I believe the gold-digger clause is still in place, which is, quite simply, disgraceful. It undercuts the right of a veteran to continue his or her life with someone who will make that life have quality.

There is the fact that veterans have to go to court, at their own expense, to get justice.

Also, there is the fact that $2 billion won't benefit the young men and women coming back from Afghanistan. It seems that this is quite deliberate.

You talked about the culture of the department and the fact that there was a time when it didn't matter, that they would do whatever it took to support the veterans. What has happened? What happened to Canada? What happened to Veterans Affairs? Why did that culture become so alienating and so destructive?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chair, I would have to say that the problem with the department is a lack of leadership. I say that because I firmly believe that culture is leader-driven. It's not driven by your HR. It's not driven by posters on the wall.

I think it was George Hees who used to go around the department. He had three priorities that he used to impress upon every person in the department. I think they were generosity, speed, and compassion. I regret that I can't remember them offhand.

But we need that kind of leadership. Long before I would ever support the claim that we should be putting more veterans into the department.... Veterans are very good at following orders also, and unless we break the culture so that there's a culture of compassion, so that we in fact do give the benefit of the doubt, not the balance of probabilities, and we treat them not as claimants but as applicants and pensioners, and we recognize the obligation of the people in government....

I think it's manifesting itself in the culture and leadership within the department.

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

Thank you.

You talked about the Veterans Ombudsman and the need for that office to be regarded at the level of a deputy minister. I'm wondering if we could take it a step further. Would it make sense to have the ombudsman report directly to Parliament and be that link between the veteran and the parliamentarian? You've talked about sitting down with 308 parliamentarians, which would be difficult. It would be a challenge. Perhaps having that ability to report to Parliament might bridge that divide.

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chair, I couldn't argue with that point. I felt particularly empowered by my order in council, in that my annual report was to be tabled by the minister, at his convenience. It's really the passage of information that's important.

What I feel very strongly is that the ombudsman should be a special adviser to the minister, to offer the minister the balance between his understanding of what's coming to him from the deputy and what's happening at the grassroots. I recognize the job of our elected officials. I certainly would never want to take it on myself. But in the final analysis, the minister is only as good as the information being provided to him or her.

I have seen fundamentally flawed information coming out of the department. We challenged question period notes at one point in time when we were on the distribution list for them, and the action of the department was to cut us out of the distribution list for question period notes. If I were the minister--I'm an information hog--I would want to have many sources of reconnaissance available to me. I think the critical link is to really be able to link with the minister.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Now we'll move to the Bloc.

Mr. André.

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

We will continue in the same vein, because these questions are interesting. I was also surprised to find that your contract as an ombudsman had not been renewed. Basically, I was not overly astonished because the list of recriminations that you made regarding some files could, I believe, have made the government in power uncomfortable. I am thinking of all the issues that you raised, for instance when you intervened so that something be done about the endless delays in the processing of applications and your comments about patients who are refused help because of lack of evidence. I am convinced of this because in other files—I am not going to talk about democracy and peace—it was observed that when someone criticizes the government in a system where that is the very same government does the hiring, this government must be very open to accept such criticism and apply it constructively to build a better future with programs that need to be implemented or services that should be delivered to veterans.

Thus, we were surprised because you were very enthusiastic about your work, but others were not, because your criticism—and I am fairly certain of what I am saying—your criticism has cost you the renewal of your mandate.

I discussed things with a colleague who was there when Mr. Mayes was there, and he told me that the Bloc, at the time, wanted the ombudsman to be accountable to Parliament and not to the government or to the minister. I would go even further and I would say that an ombudsman's office should be an independent organization, independent from the government, hired by Parliament, in order to be truly able to play its role.

My fear is that after your departure the next ombudsman will have to, if he or she wants to keep the job, not be too critical of the Veterans Charter or of the services that are not being delivered. He should not challenge too many things because that could cost him the renewal of his mandate. That is what I am concerned about as a parliamentarian.

I would like to hear what you have to say about this.

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chair, I couldn't agree more, hence the recommendations in the proposed drafting instructions for the legislation. I suggest that it should be a seven-year non-renewable term so you don't worry about where your next paycheque will be coming from.

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

Would it be in an independent organization, or one directly accountable to the minister or to the government? Who should hire this ombudsman, in your opinion? Should the minister choose the ombudsman, or should it be an independent organization made up of representatives, who could be veterans, or people from the department?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chair, I haven't thought it through in that kind of detail. I would be completely comfortable. I think that in the final analysis there has to be a working relationship, a chemistry, between the minister in the first instance at that time and.... But most importantly, I think it's the attitude of the veterans. As I said, my priorities in office were to make and maintain the trust and confidence of the veterans.

I would submit that at this point in time if my successor is chosen from the ranks of bureaucrats, the veterans will have no trust and confidence, and even, I dare say, if my successor is a veteran without adequate troop time and recognition in that respect.

So in terms of who's hiring, if it's a fixed period of time I don't think it really matters.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We have only 30 seconds left.

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

Let me say a few words about research. In another context, you said that little money was invested in research on the impact of post-traumatic stress, for instance, on dementia, or on Lou Gehrig's disease, that you mentioned at the beginning of your presentation.

Should we invest more in research on the impact of military missions on the health of war veterans? Is there enough research? Is there any political will to do this?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chair, I couldn't comment on the political will. What I can say is that more research is required.

The University of Alberta is actively working now on establishing an academic chair to bring together all of the academic institutions in Canada that do research that might be able to benefit veterans. They started off on the rehabilitation/orthopedic side. They're looking at, potentially, operational stress injuries and those kinds of things. I'm very encouraged by that.

They are going out into the private sector first and foremost to establish a financial base and then they hope to get support from government. I think it's very encouraging.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Kerr.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I first want to correct an inaccuracy that Ms. Mathyssen from the NDP reported, I don't think deliberately, but it certainly was wrong, and that is that the $2 billion extension, first of all, does apply very much to modern vets and does apply to returning veterans; it's the criteria that counts. I think it's important to get that on the record here. That's the whole point. It was trying to top up and make sure that it's adequate compensation. I want to get that on the record.

The other thing, of course, is the timing. The minister is coming forward with the legislation and certainly that has to be passed in the House before this becomes active, so the timing is reflective of the passage of the legislation; it's not delivery timed for next year. I just wanted to correct that if I could.

I would like to follow up on the research that Mr. André referred to. I'm looking at recommendations 7, 8 and 9 in that area. When you say the capacity...and I would agree with you about the research. You mentioned universities, and there's a lot of interest there. Who do you see as the obvious partners that the department should turn to in order to try to get that kind of appropriate and active research?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chair, the ones that jump out are the academic institutions. Indeed, we found somebody at the University of Western Ontario who has been funded for a study into homeless veterans. Academic institutions are the ones that jump out.

What I couldn't really comment on is in regard to other institutions that might do medical and rehabilitative research. I don't really understand that. I haven't investigated that piece.