:
Ladies and gentlemen, I know we have some other people on their way. Welcome yet again to another meeting of the veterans affairs standing committee.
Today we have a very special guest and witness with us. We've all put a lot of time into laying out the groundwork for the creation of the position of ombudsman; now we have with us the first ombudsman, Colonel Patrick B. Stogran.
The orders of the day are that pursuant to Standing Orders 110 and 111, we will discuss the order in council appointment of Colonel Patrick B. Stogran to the position of veterans ombudsman, referred to the committee on Tuesday, November 13, 2007.
Sir, I don't know if you've been told 10 or 20 minutes. It's 10 minutes as you see fit. You are front and centre today. After that, we have a predetermined order for a chance to ask you questions.
Sir, the floor is yours.
:
Mr. Chairman, may I start off by expressing my sincere appreciation to the committee for the invitation to appear here today.
It's been two short weeks since I took my release from the Canadian Forces and laid a wreath at the National War Memorial on Remembrance Day, which was my first official duty as Canada's first veterans ombudsman.
I can't deny that it was hard for me to leave the Canadian Forces. I feel I still had a great deal to offer, but the type of employment I was looking forward to in this job I think has the potential for me to put as much passion into as I did into the profession of arms. Also, I very much look forward not only to improving the lives and well-being of the veterans of past conflicts, but also to smoothing the way ahead for those who continue to perpetuate that legacy overseas.
[Translation]
At this point in time, I am hardly in a position to speak to any degree of detail about the plight of our veterans, the trials and tribulations that they face or what I intend to do about them. Suffice to say that the situation is very, very complex and with so many potential windmills to tilt at, I find that it is most prudent to keep my powder dry for the time being.
Notwithstanding, with the research that I did leading up to taking up the appointment and the flurry of meetings and consultations I have embarked on since, I feel confident that my philosophy vis-à-vis the way I will approach this challenge is fairly mature and will accurately reflect how I will do business.
My intention, therefore, is to introduce myself and this philosophy to committee members.
[English]
I come from a culture that places its priorities in terms of mission, buddy, self--in that order. During my military career I never strayed from that principle, and I was known to speak out when I believed the conventional wisdom of the day would compromise our army's ability to perform its mission or would not be in the best interests of our soldiers. Principled stances are not always the best career moves one can make, but I'm proud to be able to boast that I never let career imperatives stand in the way of my commitment to my profession.
I might add that I'm also proud that I can boast that our recent history in Afghanistan has proven the correctness of my past assertions.
This committee, and more importantly our veterans, can rest assured that I will carry that ethos of mission, buddy, self with me into the office of the veterans ombudsman. As the veterans ombudsman, I see myself as the champion of their cause. As testament to this, I've spent the first two weeks of my tenure reaching out to and visiting with as many veterans and veterans associations as I could. Consultation will be one of the hallmarks of my tenure as ombudsman. It is very important that I develop and maintain a deep empathy towards the veterans and remain abreast of the issues that cause them difficulty.
Independence will be the other hallmark, and one that I will vigorously protect. This is critically important if I hope to prevent political or bureaucratic convenience from ever tainting my objectivity or standing in the way of the fair treatment of our veterans.
I hasten to add that Veterans Affairs has been proactive in setting up the office of the veterans ombudsman. A skeleton project staff has been working for some months studying the DND ombudsman, drafting organizational charts and job descriptions, establishing infrastructure, and even receiving and logging complaints from clients; to date, we've received over 100.
We've hired some term employees to kick-start the intake and investigation processes, and we are currently reviewing the cases we've received to date with a view to identifying where we can make some short-term successes. I'm optimistic that we will be at what I would call an intermediate operating capability by spring and that we will be fully operational by the fall of next year, in 2008.
My personal priority in the coming weeks will be to hire a director general of operations who is a master of the mechanics of government and who can make things happen without letting us become overly bureaucratic ourselves. Indeed, timeliness or the lack thereof seems to be a recurring theme in the criticisms levelled against Veterans Affairs, so I will endeavour to make a rapid decision-action cycle a high priority for this office.
Finally, a fundamental principle that I want to follow as we design and implement the processes and structures for the office will be to make and maintain a personal relationship with people who avail themselves of our services.
It's been suggested that without legislation to back up the position of veterans ombudsman, the position will lack the teeth necessary to have a significant impact on the problems that affect the lives of our veterans. I submit that it remains to be seen.
On one hand, I can understand how legislation might make the job easier, but I could foresee how legislation might be as much a constraint as a freedom. In my experience, it could be argued that other ombudsmen have had tremendous impact within their domains despite the frustrations they may have experienced due to the lack of legislation. I might add that I am certainly not averse to taking on such challenges and arguing in favour of legislation if the need arises.
I think any government would be hard-pressed to ignore any suggestion I might make to enhance the lives of those who have served our country, even suggestions made to improve the efficacy of the office of the veterans ombudsman, because today the majority of Canadians share much compassion and empathy for the plight of our veterans. I also think it would be much easier for me to identify accurately what the letter of such legislation should be and to have it adopted after I have some experience under my belt.
[Translation]
It has been suggested that without the legislation to back it up the Veterans Ombudsman will lack the teeth necessary to have a significant impact on the problems that affect the lives of our veterans. l submit that this remains to be seen. On one hand l can understand that legislation might make the job of the Office easier, but l could foresee where legislation might be as much a constraint as it is a freedom. However, if I see that an absence of legislation is a significant handicap for me, I won't hesitate to say so as clearly as possible.
Another criticism of the mandate has been that the Veterans Ombudsman will not intercede in case reviews and appeals. To the contrary, however, l am quite pleased to see that l will operate outside the review and appeal process. Indeed, if there might be systemic problems inherent in the current adjudicative process, l would argue that introducing yet another player or level would be more bureaucratic smoke-and-mirrors that puts a Band-Aid on the symptoms of a problem rather than addressing the root cause. The mandate of the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman includes addressing systemic problems and emerging issues which l think gives me plenty of scope to make the current review and appeals process function more effectively if need be.
[English]
In closing, I wish to reaffirm the pledge I made when it was announced that I would take up the appointment of veterans ombudsman: it's all about the veterans; their cause is my commitment.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much, Colonel, for being here.
Thank you for taking on this very important job. There may be questions around how it's organized, how it's structured, the relationship, and what not, but that said, there will be nothing but best wishes for you from all quarters as you begin a very important mandate.
I was pleased to hear in your comments that should you feel, as you get some experience in the role as veterans ombudsman, that legislation to back you up would be necessary, you won't be shy to speak up. That is encouraging.
I wish the best of luck to you. You will certainly have a lot of support as you move forward.
Otherwise, the thing that stood out most in your comments was your interest in a rapid decision-action cycle. The witnesses we had at our Tuesday meeting--whose testimony may be forwarded to you, depending on a motion that we will deal with at some point in time--was a case study in the opposite, in the lack of timeliness. It was a nine-year journey for a serviceman, now out of the service, and his wife. He suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder.
From my very limited involvement with the military, I do know that decisions within the military structure can be made quickly and decisively and that action can be brought to bear on a particular circumstance quickly. That is part of the culture of the military.
If there is one overriding theme for our veterans, it's red tape. Coupled with that is lack of timeliness. If it is not too early in your new role, could you talk a bit about the importance of that to you? Could you expand on your comment here?
:
Mr. Chair, as I pointed out in my opening comments, a recurring theme that has become blatantly apparent to me is the lack of timeliness. Indeed, I would submit that the stories I've heard of our veterans of war services who have received their entitlements just shortly before their demise are nothing short of tragic.
Indeed, in this day and age, personnel who have come back off so-called peacekeeping operations suffering from post-traumatic stress were probably not treated with the sense of urgency that I would think the situation warranted. I would submit that we viewed past operations, post-Korea and pre-Afghanistan, as being something that was “out of sight, out of mind”.
Indeed, it's been suggested that we shouldn't be sending soldiers overseas unless there is a peace to keep. I would submit that, conversely, we don't send soldiers overseas unless there's a war. I submit that our soldiers--it doesn't matter where we've sent them in the world--have been submitted to situations that were every bit as severe as the individual occurrences during the great wars and Korea, so it's indeed a travesty that we have not been treating their concerns as quickly as possible.
I must say that throughout my career I've always challenged bureaucracy. I've challenged bureaucrats in and out of uniform throughout my career, and I think my record stands for itself in Afghanistan. We made it happen. Our battalion was slated to be withdrawn from the order of battle, so consequently it was shortchanged in all of the resources, money included; yet when we were called upon to deploy to Afghanistan, we were in a position to pull certain strings and make things happen in short order. Suffice it to say that I'm the kind of person who likes to cut through bureaucracy.
Having said that, I've encountered huge amounts of bureaucracy just stepping into this job. I would submit that things are in discussion now that might severely constrain me at the office.
All that is to say that I stayed in the army for 31 years because I enjoy a fight. I joined the office of the ombudsman because I deeply believe that they have entitlements, and I have a sense of giving back. All I can say at this point in time is that the government has displayed a lot of moral courage in appointing me to the position, because I intend to take on those impediments to swift closure of cases with a vengeance.
:
May I have another moment, Mr. Chair?
I recognize that you've just taken up your post in the last couple of weeks--although I understand you've been studying and preparing for quite some time, since you were first asked to take on the job--but is there anything in the mandate, either as the mandate was publicly declared when you took office or in the background to the mandate, that you could share with us as a cause for concern?
You suggest here that the inability of the ombudsman to intercede in case reviews and appeals is a good thing. I would agree with you, certainly, on that point, although I would be hopeful that you could, for example, look at the appeals and review process, writ large, and as ombudsman comment on the process, if not on individual cases. Are there any limitations that you foresee in your mandate now, or is it too soon to say? Also, are you allowed to comment on the appeals and review process, writ large?
:
Mr. Chair, it's indeed too soon for me to state categorically whether or not the mandate is too loosely written or not something that I'll be able to work with. However, in my opinion, I've always been the kind of person for whom the absence of direction is an opportunity, not a constraint. I think, in the first instance, there is the potential, in the way the mandate is written, for me to actually value-add to the position and turn it into something bigger than what the veteran community and indeed Canadians are expecting.
Conversely, as I said in my opening statement, if—and I must stress “if”—there's a problem with the veterans review and appeal process, I think it would be wrong. In fact, it would amount to bureaucratic smoke and mirrors to simply inject another level of bureaucracy to address decisions and get involved in the process. Indeed, I think it's far more constructive to have a source that can, on behalf of the veterans, troubleshoot the system and make recommendations.
With the mandate worded such that the office is to investigate systemic problems as well as emerging issues--that would suggest to me that I can go looking for smoke and not wait for fire--we can have a significant impact on any stage of the review and appeal process where it's being constrained by what I would say is bureaucratic imperatives.
Suffice to say that we're not allowed, by law, to get involved in reviewing decisions. Certainly I've met members who are involved in the decision-making process and I get the impression they are genuine. So if the system supports them, then I think the ombudsman will be in a position to enhance that process for the veterans.
I don't know what to call you this morning. Should I call you colonel, sir or special advisor? I won't call you ombudsman yet.
You're no doubt aware of the fact that this committee, of which I am a proud member, has worked very hard to prepare a report on the office you now occupy. It was a unanimous report that my friends on the other side of the table supported. In that report, we mentioned that the very great majority of ombudsmen, including the ombudsman of Ontario, André Marin, and those who did not come and testify but about whom I was able to read information, were appointed under an act of Parliament. Those ombudsmen report to Parliament, unlike you, because, pursuant to paragraph 127.1(1)(c) of the Public Service Employment Act, you were appointed as the minister's special advisor. If we don't go any further into your appointment... Your staff reports to the department.
May I conclude—and I'd like to have your comments on this point—that you are the political representative and that you are also a member of the staff reporting to the deputy minister of Foreign Affairs? With all this ambiguity, how can one simultaneously serve the minister, veterans and the department? That's the problem that you will have to solve over the next three years, because I believe you've been appointed for three years, if I correctly understood the information. Over the next three years, I hope you'll be able to pay special attention to veterans.
I would like to hear your comments.
:
Mr. Chair, when I say “veterans”, I mean the member as well as the family.
I was in Bosnia during the gunslinging days of 1993, where we were sending peacekeepers over to be witnesses or hostages to the situation. At that time, when this was considered to be a bloodless offering in the name of peace, the families of the soldiers, sailors, and air force personnel who were sent over there were left at home to suffer all the fears and anxieties and apprehensions that our nation is today with the situation in Afghanistan. I know that only too well.
I might add that despite the notoriety I gained from my deployment to Afghanistan as the first combat mission since the Korean War, the situation I faced in Bosnia as an unarmed military observer was far more dangerous to my well-being and almost as well publicized. My wife had far less access to the things we've put in place from the lessons we learned over those years. When I came back from Afghanistan, being away from home for a very long time, one of the most profound realizations I recognized was the trauma that families experience. Indeed, they can experience the full array of occupational stress injuries that soldiers can experience overseas. I might even say that they're more susceptible to it because they're in less of a position to do anything about it.
I must apologize to the committee for my omission of the word “families”. They are certainly first and foremost in my mind. The personnel who serve overseas are a unit. It's them, as well as the strong families who stay behind. We must not only support them during the deployments, but certainly also in the aftermath of the duties that our soldiers, sailors, and air force personnel have in serving overseas.
:
Good morning, Mr. Ombudsman. It's truly a pleasure to have you here today. I personally like straight talk, and we're certainly getting that from you today. Having listened to you this morning, I also recognize that you are very well grounded. I find that refreshing.
I would like to reiterate that you have an ally in me, as to your priorities, and your priorities are veterans. I am a cheerleader for veterans, not a cheerleader for the department. Although I think the department does a very good job, I've been saying for years that there is room for improvement. I am looking forward to the improvements you're going to make.
I would like to take a minute to do this. There was a comment made at the last meeting regarding the definition of a veteran by my friend Mr. Perron. I want to read into the record what a veteran actually is:
The term “Veteran” includes traditional war service Veterans - those who served in the First World War, the Second World War, and the Korean War - as well as those former members of the Canadian Forces who have completed basic training with the Department of National Defence and have been released from the Forces with an honourable discharge.
These requirements apply equally to those CF members who have served in the Reserves, Special Duty Areas and on domestic duty. This recognizes the potential risk that all CF members are exposed to when they swear the Oath of Allegiance and don a Canadian uniform.
In conferring “Veteran recognition” to former CF members, there is agreement between Veterans Affairs Canada and DND that the designation of “Veteran” is solely for “commemorative” and “public recognition” purposes. Access to VAC benefits and services are based on need or other defined eligibility and not recognition as a “Veteran”. In other words, Veteran status, in and of itself, does not carry with it the right to any benefits.
That's the end of my statement.
Given the number of people you are going to be responsible for, I'm sure you have your work cut out for you. Once again, I'd like to say that you've displayed the kind of integrity and the qualifications that make me feel very comfortable with you in this position. Thank you for that.
It is stated on your website that you can “refuse to deal with a request for review, except if the request was made by the Minister”. Under what circumstances would you refuse to deal with such a request?
:
Mr. Chair, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't surprised at the designation of the office, knowing the level the DND ombudsman and having read the report and the recommendations. In fact, the veterans ombudsman is the equivalent of an EX-2 or a DG.
My family is not going to starve. I took the job for the job itself, much like I've done my entire career. But having said that, it has created certain impediments, the knock-on effect of the more junior staff employed within the office of the ombudsman. Also, some of the delegations internally are being viewed as delegations that would be at the DG level rather than the level I would expect of the ombudsman.
Moreover, I can foresee, perhaps with my successor, not as much with me, where the people working at the ADM and DM level might view the position as being more the working level of the DG. I say that for my successor, because I fully intend to exercise the latitude the office warrants.
Finally, my concern is with the feelings of the veterans. I think they would have the same expectations that I would have coming into the job, that their ombudsman would be of no lesser stature than the ombudsman for the serving members.
:
Mr. Chair, I'd rather not respond to the question. I am the veterans ombudsman. I've made my statement that their cause is indeed my commitment.
There's no question that a person in need who has served overseas, whether it was the so-called peacekeeping missions that were out of sight, out of mind, when we were bringing body bags back home anonymously in the old days.... In my experience, I was shot at, shelled, spat on, and had knives pulled on me. I was detained as a so-called peacekeeper. There are probably not many people around who have more compassion for the plight of these personnel, many of whom came back under different terms before we started establishing the OSISS clinics, before the Canadian Forces started getting involved in operational stress injuries in a big way.
At the risk of speaking outside my particular mandate, it's my understanding that the Canadian Forces, in their treatment of occupational stress casualities, are also reaching out to those former members who may have slipped through the cracks in the past.
All I can say is that all the retired members of the Canadian Forces, especially so-called peacekeepers--and I shouldn't be singling them out--should all understand that I have an empathy for what they went through in the watershed years of the 1990s.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Colonel and Ombudsman, I really appreciate the fact that you're here.
That's secondary, quite honestly, to the fact that we now have an ombudsman and that we have someone like you, with your credentials--someone who has been active and is so open to talking to people about your experience for us to understand, and you want to move ahead in an efficient manner.
I'm glad we have moved ahead with this position. Obviously it's a position I think should have been in place many years ago, but no one took the initiative to make that happen. I'm glad we're here.
With the number of applications you're talking about, I'm suspecting we will see some sort of a peak over a period of time. As we have talked with witnesses, people who have been in front of us on a number of events, from VIP to post-traumatic stress disorder to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board--all of those--there really has been an issue about having someone to speak for them, so I thank you for that.
Do you feel you do not have the latitude in your position to do your job?
:
Mr. Chair, to an extent I addressed that in the discussion of the mandate earlier, in that I consider the absence of specific direction or guidance to be an opportunity and not a constraint.
In terms of latitude, I see all sorts of ways that I can value-add in ways that are more than just between the lines, but right off the page of the mandate as written.
I may come across as talking tough, but I want to keep that bit of a rough edge. The people who work in the bureaucracy on behalf of Veterans Affairs Canada I detect are genuinely concerned about the welfare of the veterans, and it's very easy, I think, to get drawn into their paradigm. It's my intention, as much as possible, to remain focused on the plight of the veterans and to allow my staff to work the mechanisms of government, so that I don't get drawn into a set paradigm and so that I can expand the latitude within the legal limits.
The major restriction in the mandate as drafted is that I have to operate within the law. The decision-making process is under legislation and is in fact law, so the short answer is no, at this point in time, I don't feel any restriction on my latitude.
:
Mr. Chair, once again, we're still in the formative and I'd say philosophical phases, but I think I can address the member's question satisfactorily.
As I've said, to date we've had some degree of success in standing up the office, but I must say that the staffing process has been painfully slow. We're still formulating the terms of reference that allow us to get the calibre of people we want in the office. Suffice it to say that the general concept of operations we're looking at is to establish what I would refer to in a very generic sense as intake officers, who will, in the first instance, make contact with the veterans or the clients, if you will--the broader veteran community--who are seeking our services, and maintain contact with them in a personal way. I suspect that if Monsieur Côté's experiences are any reflection on the way we'll be doing business, a large part of their job will be simply referring the client to the proper place to resolve the problem.
Within that decision cycle, if you will, any problems that can be handled in a fairly immediate fashion will be handled within that intake cycle. It won't be until we identify perhaps a series of complaints that might indicate a larger systemic problem that we'll actually go to formulating specialized teams with a more focused mandate. The intention is to solve things at the lowest possible level and empower the staff to make decisions rather than to seek the guidance of higher levels of authority.
As to questions about the mandate and where in the scheme of things the veterans ombudsman is and how that relativity may or may not affect the role, those are things we'll certainly ask the minister when he is here.
Let me say that I believe you will do your utmost, given the tools you have to do the job. If it's appropriate, if not in this mandate, then a future mandate, to have a different set of tools and a bigger tool box, then so be it. I'm sure you won't be shy to speak up.
Let me also be the first one here today to invite you to my part of Canada, which is in northern Ontario. I would be most pleased to assist your office to meet any of my legions or veterans in any setting, in a very non-partisan way, of course.
My colleague asked about promoting the position. I believe people are aware you're in place, but I think it's very important that you say your job is also to be out there, to be that face—if I can use that word—of the position, with a good director of operations keeping the shop humming along. Your being the face of support, comfort, and a handup for veterans is very, very important.
I should come to a question here. You suggested in your presentation that by spring you'll have an operation of some level, and that by roughly a year from now you'll have a full-scale operation. Is that based on conversations with the National Defence and Canadian Forces ombudsman or with others? There are ombudsmen positions at the provincial level in industry across the country, so presumably you've had a chance to speak to some of them about that experience.
How did you come to an expectation that it might take that timeframe to become fully operational?
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me address you as “Colonel” first. Thank you very much for your service to this nation, and particularly with the multiple theatres of operation that you explained you'd been in. It's fortunate that you're here today, given the number of things you had to endure, especially unarmed. I appreciate the fact that you're here.
You mentioned that as the ombudsman you're dedicated to “mission, buddy, self”. For the record, I'd assume that “mission, buddy, self” is going to be the veteran, your internal staff, and then of course yourself.
:
Mr. Chair, that's absolutely the case. I think I have three hallmarks that will characterize the office.
The first one is consultation and collaboration with the veterans. We have to be one with them.
Regarding the second one, I have been doing a lot of pontificating, if you will, or philosophizing about this particular job, because it's been stressed to me by several ombudsmen that I should be impartial. I can't see being impartial when in fact I am representing. I do have a bias towards the veteran.
However, that's not to say that the second hallmark won't be objectivity. In order to be objective, we have to be thorough in our research and investigation. We have to be thoughtful in our consideration and pragmatic in our recommendations. That's going to be very important. Two things that we can never lose as the office of the ombudsman are, first, credibility, and then second, the support of the public, who right now are very sympathetic and compassionate towards our veterans. So objectivity is a very important concern.
:
Thank you once again, sir.
You can understand Mr. Perron's concerns about the fact that we did a unanimous report, and some recommendations of that report haven't yet been met by the government. We're concerned about that because not only opposition members signed on to that report but Conservative members as well. We have concerns about certain aspects of the report. Then again, we'll deal with the minister on that, not specifically you. You can understand some of the frustration.
Of course, as you mentioned, one of the keys is independence, the ability to do what you think is best for the veterans and their families. You said in your presentation to us that Veterans Affairs Canada has been very proactive in helping you set up the office. How many people work for you now who are still with...? For example, the intake office in Charlottetown would deviate.
I'm not sure if you've had a chance to check the testimony--you probably haven't--of the buildup to this veterans ombudsman position, but the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, to be honest with you, let's put it mildly, was not favourable to your being here. I think if they had their way, they would probably not want to see you, but you're here now and they're going to see you.
My concern, of course, is independence. Do you still have people working for you who still work for Veterans Affairs Canada? If they do, when will that separation take place, true independence?
This is all factual, no speculation.
I want to add my accolades to you, Colonel, and I'll call you Mr. Ombudsman, for your years of service to our country and now taking on another challenge. It sounds as if you're up for the challenge and looking forward to the opportunities and helping your colleagues and veterans throughout our country.
I represent Kelowna--Lake Country in the interior of British Columbia. We have a number of seniors and veterans, and I look forward to having you come as well to the.... Bill Tanner, whom I was speaking to yesterday, is our local champion representing a lot of the veterans, and he said to pass along his congratulations to you as well. I know the many others who have come to my office after your announcement are looking forward to the positive results to come.
One of the issues this committee has been discussing--and I'm fairly new to it--is the issue of talking not only to our veterans but also to our existing members in the service. You served for a number of years, and as a newly retired member now sitting as the ombudsman, do you think there's some value in this committee going around to the different forces and talking with some of the members on the bases to find out how they feel about veterans? Can you recall, as a serving member, seeing how Veterans Affairs Canada treated veterans?
:
Mr. Chair, first of all, regarding Mr. Bill Tanner, I'm off to Calgary next week, and I'm adding an extra leg to my trip to go to Peachland to visit Mr. Tanner as well as Ken Barwise, both of whom came to my attention very early in my tenure as being people I should meet with. So I look forward to meeting Mr. Tanner.
Regarding meeting young soldiers, personally my approach to business--and far be it from me to make recommendations to the committee, but I certainly think my place is to meet young soldiers. I would suggest that where we separate the traditional veteran from the peacekeeping veteran from the modern veteran in Afghanistan, the monitor or tag line I'm embracing is that there's one veteran, and the needs of the so-called traditional veteran or the veterans of war service are going to be exactly the same as the needs of our so-called peacekeepers probably 20 years hence and what our young soldiers, sailors, and air force personnel serving in Afghanistan today might need 40 or 50 years hence.
The question was how did I feel as a young officer about veterans and that sort of thing. I must say, in all reality, the importance of institutions such as ANAVETS and the Legion completely escaped me. I never in my wildest dreams as a young person expected to be a veteran, and I must say that even though I used to instill in the young soldiers the importance of logging every injury and every sort of trauma you incur throughout your career, for veteran reasons, I was sadly negligent throughout my career, and it's coming back to haunt me now. All that to say I have another message that should be conveyed to those young troops who are serving Canada valiantly now in the campaign on terror.
Let me add my voice to Gilles'. We have no doubt that you're sincere and that you have the best of intentions. But I for one am very disappointed to hear about the status they've ascribed to your position.
Essentially what I see is that your scope has been limited. The status of your position relative to the defence ombudsman impacts your role in matters that overlap between the two departments. After all the rhetoric this government has given in putting veterans first, the government has made the position of the ombudsman at Veterans Affairs a junior one. My personal feeling is that now that the government has created the role, they have to elevate you to the status the veterans deserve. I don't think it should be done at some place in the future; it should be done immediately.
Having said that, I have one last question to ask. To the issue of scope, could you relate the role you expect to play in improving the quality of care in the long-term care facilities around the country? Previously there were VAC employees who held varying titles, from ombudsman to quality care officers, in this regard. How do you intend to work with the existing internal monitoring roles within the department itself to deal with potential complaints arising from patient care? You're going to have to go through the entire bureaucratic maze. I wonder if you could share some insights as to how you think you're going to deal with this.
:
Mr. Chair, I might say, in all honesty, I consider the bureaucratic maze to be a little bit daunting, and I couldn't get into specifics on how we might challenge that. That's why, to my mind, having a senior, experienced bureaucrat who understands how bureaucracies work, and whom I can bully and lean on, can assist me in cutting through the red tape. Certainly the long-term care facilities are something I have reviewed in the past. I'll be visiting Ste. Anne's Hospital tomorrow. It is a concern.
I think my biggest ally is, first of all, the credibility I have as a veteran myself, and also, once again, the public notoriety. It's my full intention, if I may use a bit of a crass term, to exploit that and to be the voice of veterans, to be one with the veterans.
I might add, regarding the rank, that I've never throughout my career.... I stayed in the infantry because I like a fight, and I certainly don't feel that is going to hinder my ability to identify problems or “front up” to the desk that the ombudsman fronts up to. It might be the perception of the person on the other side of the desk as to the stature of the position, but I fully intend to make the most of the next three years, to be heard and to pay attention to detail.
I can make no promises as to how much I'll be able to accomplish, because, once again, I feel the whole red tape thing and the bureaucracy to be a bit daunting, but I would submit that even if my accomplishments are nowhere near my expectations or desires, every step will be in the right direction and will be for improving the lives and well-being of our veterans. That's what I'm committed to in the next three years.
:
At this stage, committee members, we have some more spots available, but I think we've exhausted the questions, unless I see any people wishing to...? Okay.
We have other business to deal with potentially, with a notice of motion from Mr. St. Denis.
At this stage, Colonel Stogran, I would like to thank you very much for presenting to us today. I was touched by your mission, buddy, self motto. I was very impressed as well that you wanted to go and visit our First World War veteran, Mr. Babcock, the oldest surviving one we have, I'm sure. We certainly don't have anyone left from the Boer War or anything like that. So I was impressed by that.
My favourite politician of all time was Augustus or Octavius. He honoured the veterans of Rome tremendously, and many of his efforts brought stability to the Roman Empire. Anyhow, I think your role is very important and it's good.
I'll offer this to you as well. Thanks for coming today. The notice of motion, if Mr. St. Denis wishes to bring it forward, is very relevant. So I would say even though you're a witness, you're welcome to hang around for it, if he....
I think all of us were very impressed with the courage of the couple who appeared on Tuesday. In a way they are representative of many veterans and their families who have dealt with the red tape and lack of timeliness in their dealings with Veterans Affairs, or DND in this case. While I believe the public service does its best, there are systemic issues that need to be dealt with.
I think it would be a way to thank the couple for appearing, that what they said was important enough that we have asked the ombudsman to look at the testimony, and that in due course, without any undue pressure on him or his office, which is in evolution, that they look at this as a terrible example of what it's like for some veterans to deal with the department. Particularly as the husband in this case is dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder, for people like him, red tape and timeliness are even more important. It's bad enough that you have a leg injury, but if it's a mental injury, then I think those concerns add to the injury. If it was just a leg injury, it wouldn't add to the injury, but in this case the mental injury does.
I want to pass a couple of grammatical corrections to the clerk, but I won't bother the committee with those minor details.
I'd like to move this motion. It's our first, and I presume, as a committee, we can make references to the ombudsman. He will do what he sees fit with any recommendation or reference from us, but to get the ball rolling, something we've heard more than once, I thought we could pass that testimony on to the ombudsman.