Veterans Affairs Committee on April 22nd, 2010

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chair, first, regarding the availability of long-term care to Canadian Forces veterans, one of the philosophical principles that should be retained throughout this discussion of the new Veterans Charter is that the commitment of the service person and his or her family to Canada's wars has not changed since the Second World War. I say “Canada's wars” because any time we send our national treasures overseas to die for this country, it becomes Canada's war, whosever war it is; we may not have declared it, but we own it.

All that is to say that the commitment of our soldiers, sailors, and air force personnel--and indeed, police officers now--who go over to Canada's wars has not changed. What has changed is the commitment of the Government of Canada, first of all, to those wars, and secondly, to the veterans. It's very clear in the case of priority access and contract beds that the intention is that it's a sunset program.

I was approached by the department to seek my support for and my endorsement of the closing of Ste. Anne's. From a business case point of view, it's hard to refute the closing down of Ste. Anne's, but I'm not in this job to settle short-term budget problems. My concern is strategic. They hold up as an example the other veterans hospitals that have been closed down, yet the beds in the communities are successful programs.

But as we've witnessed in the last couple of days, once the infrastructure is gone, it's very easy to quietly close down beds and cease contracts, and then, when the people who have served valiantly in these so-called peacekeeping missions, as well as the Cold War, become old and fragile and are in need, the precedent, the relationship that they forged in their blood with the Government of Canada, will be abrogated and passed down to the provinces to look after.

Does that answer the question?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Allard.

[Pierre Allard]

First, in regard to the long-term care, I have to go back to the Gerontological Advisory Council report, Keeping the Promise. We were trying to address access to long-term care for modern veterans in the context of that report.

The compromise from the veterans organizations providing advice to the department was that we should at least give access to those modern veterans who are medically released or those who have served in a special duty area. That would also have helped simplify some of the eligibility grids. Unfortunately, the department did not see fit, basically, to even reply to the recommendations of their chosen council.

That then brings me to the second point. Because we saw really no reply and no action on Keeping the Promise, we are worried about the fact that the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group recommendations will also be dropped into a void. We also know that this report, even though it has stamped on it “October 2009”, was really provided to the department in June 2009. The officials were being consulted throughout the making of this report so they should have been ready to reply to the recommendations enclosed in the report.

I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the minister, but because of those instances, the lack of response on Keeping the Promise and the fact that the report has been with the department since June, we can only ask the question: what is the delay? Keep in mind the fact that we were promised all along that this was a living charter, that when gaps were identified, solutions would be found.

We're not trying to attack the department here. We realize that the department is doing a good job.

From Legion Magazine, I'd like to quote a veteran who says:

I come under the Veterans Affairs Canada office in Peterborough, Ont. From my experience this must be the finest group of civil servants anywhere! As an example, as soon as they found out that my wife had fallen and broken her hip, they called to see if I required additional help

They are a fine group of civil servants, but there is obviously some lack of being able to give a response to things that are crucial and critical to the care of veterans.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much, Mr. Allard and Mr. Stogran.

Only Mr. Stoffer and I were here for your initial presentation, so we're the only two who would know what you mean when you say “so-called peacekeeping missions”. You'd have to brief everybody else offline directly to let them know your feelings on that.

Mr. Kerr, you have seven minutes.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I think we get the drift.

I do want to welcome both of you. We appreciate your being here.

I want to go first to Mr. Allard's comments. I know how passionate he feels, because we've had a chance to chat before about getting on with the job. I think it's important as we wrap up our process with the recommendations to keep in mind that one of the things the department is looking forward to is getting the recommendations that this committee is going to provide as part of that change. I don't know whether that impacts the timing or not, but I think it's really important to get in the additional information that's coming forward.

There are a lot of issues out there. There's no question about it. From our side, I have to say that there has been a lot of progress at the same time, along with the frustrations. I want to make sure that when we're through we're all trying to improve--not change because we were frustrated at this point or whatever. The long-term result has to be of benefit.

First, Mr. Stogran, I'm certainly glad to have you back. I know that you're continuing your work, and there are calmer days now, I guess, so you're getting on without difficulty. I think that probably what you're finding is a bit unique, which is good for all of us, and that is that your contacts and so on are direct. I'd like to just pursue that for a moment.

I know that last year the main topic seemed to be homeless veterans, but in your review and your studies you're probably finding other things that you want the committee to be aware of. You were very succinct in your presentation. I wonder if you'd like to add to the kinds of things that we as a committee should be aware of as we make our recommendations back to the charter process.

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Thank you very much for that question, Mr. Chair.

Regarding the charter and the discussion that my colleague engaged in regarding how long a piece of string is--and I say that in all seriousness regarding the discussion of what the earnings loss benefit should be--I think that fundamentally another philosophical principle has been lost in this discussion, and that's the move towards a needs-based approach for veterans. In the case of a needs-based approach, whatever the veteran really needs should be the salary or the earnings loss benefit that is provided to them.

For a couple of years, a keystone document that was promoted as leading the move towards the needs-based approach was the health care review. But in our records, and in our research, we found no reference to the health care review in the last two years. Apparently that was on the leading edge of the needs-based philosophy, but what we're seeing within the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman is that they are clinging to the old entitlements approach.

Young Corporal Kerr is a triple-amputee living in Sudbury today, starting off a young family. I would submit that if we truly had a needs-based approach to looking after our veterans, and if his case manager got to know him and understand his needs and got to know how hard-working young Corporal Kerr is in terms of getting back on his feet again, then if it came to the point that his children were of university age and he'd been working enough but couldn't put them through and needed some help, the system should be there to pick up the ball in that case.

I feel that anybody who signs up for a career in the Canadian Forces or the RCMP, regardless of the fact that they may meet an early demise, has certain career expectations. They expect that their career will provide them and their families certain things throughout their life. I would submit that in a truly needs-based approach to business, if a service person's life is cut short or their quality of life is severely degraded by a debilitating accident, there should be a reasonable expectation that those needs will still be provided for.

I just want to make the point of the importance of going back to the original philosophies upon which this is based. If we don't have the needs-based approach right, then I would submit that the whole new Veterans Charter would be in need of a complete rethinking with regard to the programs.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Thank you. You're actually getting back to the philosophical stage, the basis itself, instead of just perhaps adjusting it. It's a matter of what the adjustments are based on. Am I getting that correct?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Yes, sir.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Thank you.

Mr. Allard, I know that your involvement has been pretty steady for a long time, and I know what recommendations came out of the review committee. I'm not going to ask you again to prioritize them. We went through that and we didn't get very far with that one. I am going to ask, though, whether in your thinking over the last several months you have come up with anything that should also be considered beyond those specific recommendations.

[Pierre Allard]

I think my colleague, the ombudsman, has pointed one out, and I did so also, by inference. I think long-term care is something that is not built into the new Veterans Charter.

My colleague has also identified another one that is not built in. It is that the funeral and burial benefits that need to be improved substantially and also need to be made available to the new modern veteran. That is something that has not been done in the context of the recommendations.

The funeral and burial benefits, especially, are of large concern, because I think what happened is that it did not come true as a recommendation. At that time, there were basically two funnels going up. One was dealing with providing services and one was dealing with commemoration. These funnels have now been brought together in the department, but at the time the recommendations came forward, there was still this disparity.

If you will allow me to talk about philosophy, we were talking about earnings loss benefit. We were discussing what salary level we are talking about. The reality is that in the philosophy between the Pension Act and the new Veterans Charter we basically went a very long way to changing a philosophy, which was that whatever happened to you, what rank you were didn't really make any difference. Your monthly disability pension would be the same whether you were a private, a colonel, or a general. We have respected that philosophy in the disability award, the same way that SISIP respects that philosophy in accidental dismemberment.

You will be talking to Bruce Henwood in the coming days. He is the champion who in 2003 resolved the fact that accidental dismemberment was provided for only at a certain level, for colonels and generals. He brought it forward for the same level at all rank levels.

But when we look at the disability awards and the earnings loss benefit, because we've espoused the SISIP approach to providing earnings loss, we capped it at rank levels. So keep that in mind when you're talking about how we can improve these benefits that are included in the new Veterans Charter.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Kerr.

Now we'll go to Madam Sgro for five minutes.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you both for being here.

Mr. Allard, it's nice to see you again.

Mr. Stogran, I first have to tell you how great it is to see how strongly committed you are to the important job you have as the ombudsman. In our work, we continue to meet so many veterans and families in the military who continue to raise issues that we are all trying to deal with here as a committee to make life better. Clearly, your commitment to them is to be applauded.

Are you receiving the reports now? Are you receiving all of the reports you require or is that going to require the MOU in order to get it done, to get that support?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Mr. Chair, that's a very difficult question for me to answer, because fundamentally I don't know what information the department holds on the various issues. We encountered that. It has been a learning experience, but we encountered that with the homeless issue, for example. We went through the process of an access to information request, because as an ombudsman I don't mind information being withheld from me if I know it exists, but I'm trying to make a balanced and objective statement on any of the issues that we have.

First and foremost, I have to make sure that I have at least the information that the general public has. We went through that exercise and found that there were thousands of pages of documentation that we had not been privy to. So I think, through this memorandum of understanding, the department recognizes the role of the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman and the service we provide all levels of government in what we do through our town halls and those sorts of things. I'm satisfied that through this memorandum of understanding we'll be afforded at least the level of information sharing that we would get through ATIP.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Is it two years that you've been the ombudsman?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Yes, two and a half years. My term is up in November.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

How long before you expect to have this MOU signed? Could the committee get a copy of it when it is completed?

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Yes, Mr. Chair. Regarding that MOU, we will definitely share it with committee members. I hasten to add, based on an honourable member's question regarding the correspondence that comes out of our office, that we are at the beck and call of any member of Parliament for any of those types of documents or issues or feedback from our town hall meetings. Most certainly, we will provide that information.

I might also add that there has been a steep learning curve in the past two years. This was not a turnkey operation. We were established as a mirror of the DND ombudsman, but we found very much that the challenges we face, the magnitude of the complaints that come our way, and the complexities of many of the issues, are very, very different from those of the DND ombudsman. I think it's safe for me to say that it's been as much a learning experience for the department staff as it has for us.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

We had a presentation on Tuesday by a Mr. Zimmerman, who heads up a national disability management organization, and to listen to that model he told us about....

I share the same concern. I think once our men or women put uniforms on and put their lives on the line--I think we all feel the same way--they become the responsibility of the government. It's up to us to see that they are looked after in whatever way is necessary. When we talk about a needs-based plan, it's everything, starting with helping them to be placed in jobs so that they're contributing in whatever capacity they're able to contribute.

I have to say, we were really impressed--I should speak for myself, but I think I speak for the committee--with the way that model worked. He was presenting it as a model of how we should be dealing with many of our veterans, and I found it fascinating. The commitment and the care going into everything he said showed that British Columbia and various organizations were clearly putting their people first to make sure that they have adequate jobs and that whole strength of feeling that they were doing.

I'd like to get some comments back from you on that issue. In case the chair cuts me off, could I ask about what happened to the health care review? You've mentioned it. I've been here almost two years now, I think, and I haven't seen it or heard about it. Can someone let me know where we are with that health care review? What happened to it?

[Pierre Allard]

As far as I know, it has disappeared. This is something that has been actually going on at the department since 2002. The report, Keeping the Promise, from the GAC, was really the ultimate conclusion of some very hard work.

If you don't mind, I'd like to talk about the needs-based approach, because it brings forward another point of discussion we were having before the honourable members came.

In a needs-based approach, you realize that when you do the costing, you don't need to do the costing for 100% of the people coming forward to tap services. You probably need to do the costing for between 12% and 14% of the people who will need the services. In that instance, it facilitates being able to project what the financial demands will be for certain programs. There's a problem with doing financial estimates when you're trying to fund 100%. This is a problem, I think, not only for the Conservative government, but for other MPs, which has to be resolved at the source.

This was the fundamental framing of the Keeping the Promise report. We realized that only 12% to 14% of the people would come and get services. If you look at the slide that was given to you by the ombudsman, you can see that the number of clients who are in place in Veterans Affairs is 58,000 clients--modern veterans--out of a total pool of 592,000. The figures speak for themselves. When you do costing with a needs-based approach, you don't need to cost to 100%.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Allard, Madam Sgro was right. We need to move on to another speaker now.

We'll go on to Mr. Lobb for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll split my time with Mr. McColeman.

The question I have has to do with job placement and job placement within Veterans Affairs. Mr. Bruyea was here a meeting or two ago and mentioned a certain percentage of jobs within Veterans Affairs being allotted for actual veterans. Of course, I'm not saying that it has to be a certain percentage.

Mr. Stogran, you mentioned in your statement that if you haven't worn the uniform, it's very difficult to understand. I just wondered if you could give the committee some thoughts on the value of having more veterans working in Veterans Affairs, perhaps. Maybe there are some options---not necessarily having a requirement for a university degree but having a nice system set up to put some equivalencies in there.

[Col Patrick Stogran]

Yes, Mr. Chair, regarding the employment of veterans in Veterans Affairs, I think quotas of any sort are counterproductive. I would submit that the culture at Veterans Affairs Canada is broken, despite the best efforts of a lot of good people working on behalf of veterans.

It's very much an insurance company approach to doing business. I dare say that veterans of service in the military and RCMP are experts at following orders, and if they are thrown into that kind of a culture, they are going to follow orders. Culture is bigger than any individual.

I feel very strongly that the culture has to change. I feel very strongly that to do that it has to go towards a needs-based approach. I also feel very strongly that in order to satisfy that needs-based approach, case managers on the front lines have to be empowered to offer veterans what they really need. I think that's the principle upon which this program is based.

Now, having said that, veterans do add a certain colour. I think that 30% of our staff within the office are veterans at various rank levels. They offer a different outlook on life to the young entry-level professionals who are on our staff.

They also have a certain degree of credibility when dealing with veterans, particularly problem veterans. There have been occasions within our organization where my staff have had me phone veterans and I have said to veterans, “If you behaved like that in the Canadian Forces, we would have thrown you out for being an administrative burden”. There's a joint responsibility here. No civilian can get away with that. So I think there's a blend.

I'd like to address the piece about education because it is a significant problem. Yes, there is priority afforded to Canadian Forces people who are medically released in terms of employment, but that education piece is sadly missing. It's an imperative at many levels of government, and the new Veterans Charter is sadly lacking in that. I've had young soldiers who aspire to obtain their Ph.D. so they can get involved in things like international relations and such, but who are offered a token two years towards a bachelor's degree. Then they're on their own.

We should be rewarding ambition and commitment, and for people coming out of the Canadian Forces, yes, that priority to public service is very important, but we should be setting the conditions whereby they can actually take advantage of it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay. You have a minute and a half.