Veterans Affairs Committee on April 22nd, 2010

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

I'm passing my time to Mr. Storseth.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you both for coming here today, gentlemen. I'll be quick.

I would like to go further into Mr. Oliphant's questions to you, Mr. Stogran. Under your job, is it appropriate for you to attend any partisan political fundraisers?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chair, fundamentally, I will not get involved in anything partisan. I am at the disposal of any of our senior leadership to help them understand the plight of our veterans, but I will not be involved in any way, shape, or form in the politicking piece.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

It would be very inappropriate, would it not, under your position?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Yes--short answer.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

As well, any partisan political photo ops would be inappropriate for you or your office to participate in, would they not?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

I.... That's--

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

I'm just asking if it would be inappropriate for you or your office to be involved knowingly in a partisan political photo op—

[Col Patrick Stogran]

I would have to seek a definition of a “partisan photo opportunity”. If it's being photographed with somebody from another party, I don't care if they're NDP, Conservative, Liberal, black, white, or whatever--

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

That's not the question. I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm simply suggesting that these things would be inappropriate. Have you ever been asked during prorogation to attend what you felt was a partisan event?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chair, yes. And no, I did not attend.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

I would like to thank you for your judgment on that. I think it's important that your office continue to be non-partisan and to serve the men and women and the veterans of our Canadian Forces and the RCMP. I'd like to thank you, on behalf of the committee, for maintaining that non-partisanship.

I also, Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Storseth.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

liv—find it highly inappropriate to be pressuring these gentlemen, at committee, to be attending those things.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Storseth.

Monsieur André, pour cinq minutes.

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

Good afternoon, sir. It is a pleasure to meet you.

According to your Web site, you are conducting a study right now. You have undertaken public consultations on the single lump sum versus the monthly pension. Where are you at in your research? Why are you doing this study? Have you received a number of complaints and questions about it? I would like to hear your comments on that.

In addition, many veterans have appeared before the committee, and they have often said that it was difficult to access certain services, especially in rural areas. In remote areas, veterans were often very isolated and did not have access to services.

As someone who used to be in the health sector, I wondered about something. Do you think it would be beneficial to reorganize services, to cooperate more with health stakeholders in certain regions and to expand ties so as to better support veterans in more remote areas? We heard from individuals who had suffered from post-traumatic stress, and I was quite shocked to learn that, according to certain studies, these people had very high rates of separation and family problems, as a result. There seems to be a lack of regard in that respect. Should there not be more support and follow-up in terms of these situations?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chair, very quickly, regarding the lump sum, it's a hugely contentious issue. I've stated my belief that it's wrong to hand over a lump sum to an individual. As a retreaded army officer, I would submit that it's wrong to offer a person the choice between a pension and a lump sum.

Throughout my career, I have exercised tough love, and you do what's best for the individual, because, very often, a young soldier coming back from Afghanistan will opt for the cash in hand. So we have to be thinking about that person and the rest of their life; otherwise, they could become a ward of the state as a frail veteran.

The availability of service for veterans is indeed a national problem--and also for civilians. It's very difficult. Many of our veterans want to retire to where they came from and the services just aren't available there. I would submit, however, that Veterans Affairs Canada should take a leadership role in the provision of services, much as it did after World War I and World War II.

Although there was an honourable member of Parliament associated with universal health care, I often say there were veterans hospitals across this country that were providing universal health care, and it was a very easy inference to make that all Canadians should have that. I think Veterans Affairs Canada should be taking a leadership role in trying to improve the services to veterans in remote areas and setting an example for the various provinces that may be having problems in providing health services for our veterans.

And the last question was on PTSD...?

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

Yes.

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Once again, Mr. Chair, PTSD and operational stress injuries are a significant problem. I disagree with labelling or treating everyone as an invalid because they've been diagnosed with an operational stress injury. I have been diagnosed with PTSD, and there is an honourable senator who has been diagnosed with PTSD, and we've managed to carry on with our lives.

What I would say also is that stress problems, mental health issues, are of huge proportions within civilian society. I think that Veterans Affairs should become very engaged in the veterans community, as a small focus group of Canadians, with a view to taking a leadership role in setting standards and perhaps pioneering ways of looking after people with stress injuries or mental health problems.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Stogran.

Thank you, Mr. André.

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

Do I still have some time left?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

No, that's your time.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I just have a point of order. Because there seemed to be some accusations of something nefarious, either on my part or the retired colonel's part, I want to clarify that on January 9, 2010, Juliet O'Neill of Canwest News Service reported, perhaps inaccurately, that the ombudsman said that he would attend our round table. That's a matter of public record. He said he would not provide any political sound bites at that point. When we held the round table, he was not able to come.

I simply want to clarify this, because he had said to a reporter, and it was reported in the news media— you get your news clips, so you probably read it as well—that he would come. I just want to clarify that he had indeed independently changed his mind on coming, which is his right, and I respect him for that; I wanted to ensure that there was no political interference. That is simply what I wanted to do and I would hope the other members would accept that it was what I was trying to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Oliphant. That wasn't really a point of order.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair--