Proceedings of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs
Issue 3 - Evidence - February 6, 2008
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 6, 2008
The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 12:04 p.m. to study on the services and benefits provided to members of the Canadian Forces, veterans of war and peacekeeping missions and members of their families in recognition of their services to Canada.
Senator Michael A. Meighen (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I call this meeting to order. At this point, we have with us Senator Kenny, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, and Senator Banks, both of whom have served on this committee for some time. We await the arrival of other senators.
Without further ado, we should proceed. We have a distinguished witness before us today, Retired Colonel Patrick Stogran, who retired in 2007 after a long career with the Canadian Forces to take up his current appointment as the Veterans Ombudsman. This is a new and recently created position. Consequently, the purpose of this meeting is to gain an understanding of the role and function of the Veterans Ombudsman in relation to the implementation of the New Veterans Charter and the Veterans Bill of Rights.
The Veterans Ombudsman is an impartial, arm's-length and independent officer with the ability to assist veterans to pursue their concerns and advance their issues. It is also intended that the appointment will raise awareness of their needs and concerns and enhance the confidence of veterans that their views are important. The ombudsman is mandated to uphold the Veterans Bill of Rights and review individual and systemic issues arising from it.
Colonel Stogran, welcome to the committee. I understand you have a brief statement and hope you are available for questions following that.
Colonel (Ret'd) Patrick Stogran, Veterans Ombudsman, Veterans Affairs Canada: I appreciate the invitation to appear here today.
I will introduce myself and my operating philosophy as I did to the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, summarize our progress to date, and offer observations regarding the office and our operating environment today.
I cannot deny it was hard to leave the Canadian Forces. Being a soldier was never a job for me, it was a way of life. Throughout my career, I never lost sight of the fact that I would one day have to leave the army and start working for a living, but I was never anxious for that day. However, it did not take long for me to decide to accept the offer to become Canada's first Veterans Ombudsman. If there is anyone I respect as much as our men and women in uniform, it is our veterans. This job represents an opportunity to give back to that community in a meaningful and lasting way. For me, this is a labour of love.
[Translation]
I resisted the bureaucratic attitude throughout my military career, and this, despite the fact that bureaucracy existed in headquarters, even though it very rarely succeeded in taking roots within combat units of the Canadian Armed Forces. So I could not think of any other position for which I would be better equipped in order to fight the bureaucracy that is frustrating our veterans.
[English]
My first priority since taking up the appointment has been to travel across the country and meet with as many veterans, advocates and advocacy groups as possible. To date, I have also visited long-term care facilities at Sainte-Anne's Hospital near Montreal, Sunnybrook Hospital in Toronto, Calgary's Colonel Belcher Hospital and the Perley and Rideau Veterans' Health Centre in Ottawa. I have acquainted myself with the operational stress injury support system and visited Veteran Affairs Canada in Charlottetown and several of their district offices. Moreover, I have immersed myself in learning the job of an ombudsman and analyzed various examples of ombudsman offices.
Veterans Affairs Canada was proactive in setting up the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman. A skeleton staff worked for some months prior to my appointment studying the DND ombudsman, drafting organizational charts and job descriptions, establishing infrastructure, and even receiving and logging complaints from clients of which we have almost 300 to date. We have hired some term employees to receive and review these complaints from clients with a view to identifying where we can make some short-term successes. We are also studying some issues that could become our first full-scale analyses of systemic problems. I am optimistic that we will be at what I would call an "intermediate operating capability" in the coming months and be fully operational by late fall.
Another of life's lessons that I have hoisted aboard in spades is how ponderous the public service hiring process is. I expected it to take time, but also thought I would be reviewing curricula vitae for a prospective director general of operations by now.
Having been an operator my entire professional life, I am taking a command approach to the office. To that end, my place will be in the trenches with the veterans, leading from the front. I am currently looking for a director general of operations who will complement my approach — a tenacious pit bull who is a master of the mechanisms of government and can cut through the constraints of bureaucracy and effect change. Inefficiency and the lack of timeliness seem to be recurring criticisms of Veterans Affairs Canada. Therefore, I will endeavour to make a rapid and effective decision-action cycle a hallmark of our office.
Job descriptions for senior staff positions were relatively easy. It was more difficult to identify a front-line model that will best satisfy the needs of our veteran community. Our intake personnel and the way they deal with our veterans, as well as the processes that support them, will be the most compelling image projected by the office. We must avoid becoming an organization of bureaucrats or individuals who see their jobs as fuelling the fire of a bureaucracy. We need "public servants" in the truest sense of the name and a streamlined process that allows a prompt turnaround time on issues.
As I said earlier, consultation has been another of the hallmarks of my tenure thus far as ombudsman and will continue to be. It is important that I develop and maintain a deep empathy with veterans and remain abreast of the issues that cause them difficulty. On the other side of the frontier, regarding my relationship with government, independence will be a third 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.
Although our responsibilities are articulated in our mandate, our authority to prosecute that mandate will emanate from our credibility. To be credible, we must ensure that we: thoroughly and impartially investigate all complaints and issues; carefully consider all of the facts relating to a case in a thoughtful, balanced fashion; and offer pragmatic and practical recommendations. In the final analysis, I think any government would be hard pressed to ignore any legitimate suggestion I might make to enhance the lives of those who have served our country. I say this because today the majority of Canadians share much compassion and empathy for the plight of our veterans.
Finally, a fundamental principle 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. This will depend upon the culture we cultivate as we bring in new staff. Culture is something that cannot be fostered by any process, structure or policy. It is a responsibility of leadership at all levels and will remain my primary focus in these days as we stand up the office.
It has been suggested that, without legislation to back it up, the Veterans Ombudsman lacks the teeth necessary to have a significant impact on the problems that affect the lives of our veterans. I submit that remains to be seen. I can certainly understand how legislation might make the job of the office easier, but I think that the Ombudsman for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces has enjoyed some significant accomplishments without it. Moreover, I can foresee where legislation might have proven to be more of a constraint than a freedom. Despite the hard work of the interim team in laying the groundwork for establishing the office, we have had to rethink some of the initial assumptions on which that work was based.
Similarly, given the amount I have learned to date, I am confident that if, at some point in time, I think we need legislation, I am now in an excellent position to advise exactly what such legislation should include. I can assure the committee I would not hesitate to call for it if I see the need.
I hasten to add, however, another one of my revelations from the past couple of months. There should be no doubt that the ability of the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman to achieve its mandate without the authority to compel the release of relevant documentation and availability of departmental staff will depend mainly upon the cooperation of senior departmental officials.
Another criticism has been that the Veterans Ombudsman will not intercede in case reviews and appeals. To the contrary, I am pleased that our office will operate outside the review and appeal process. I have argued that, if there are systemic problems in the adjudicative process, introducing yet another player or level would be a typically bureaucratic solution that puts a Band-Aid on the symptoms rather than a bullet in the root cause. The mandate of the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman allows us to address systemic problems and emerging issues which, in my opinion, offers plenty of scope to make the current review and appeal process function more effectively if necessary.
[Translation]
In conclusion, I wish to once again express my sincere gratitude to the committee for having invited me to appear today. I am anxious to cooperate with members of the committee in order to ensure that those who have served our country so well be treated in a fair and equitable manner and with all the respect that is due to them.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Colonel. That was helpful. While you were making your statement, two other senators joined us — Senator Nancy Ruth from Ontario and Senator Day from New Brunswick.
We have a full complement of members. I am sure there will be a number of questions. I will ask Senator Nancy Ruth to begin.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I am new to the committee and therefore know little of the goings-on.
I am trying to figure out how veterans do things. My assumption, based on reading the materials we received, is that you only deal with systemic questions of law or discrimination. Is that true?
If so, what kind of lawyers will you be hiring? In addition, how much money do you have and how will you get more?
The Chair: Lawyers or money?
Senator Nancy Ruth: Well, money.
My final question is: Are you the last place of appeal for a veteran?
Col. Stogran: It is an oversimplification to say we only deal with systemic issues. It is better to say that we do not get involved in the adjudicative process. That said, we are responsible for upholding the Veterans Bill of Rights as well as addressing the complaints of our clients.
Until a client has exhausted the review and appeal process, we are not allowed to get involved.
However, we can look at poor administration as it applies to the veterans review and appeal process. From the legal perspective, we cannot challenge legal decisions. Once again, however, my interpretation of that is — it may be legal, it may be right, but is it fair? There can be things that are unfair but still legal. In my estimation, it is all about the fairness in our office to ensure that veterans are treated appropriately.
We certainly have an excess of money this year. We had approximately $5.3 million allocated for the year, but that was in anticipation of the office being stood up in April and it was not until November when we finally got rolling. I suspect it would be an adequate amount for us to carry out operations. I am now in the process of refining my business plan and identifying exactly what the requirement is. Based on my study over the last two months on the role of ombudsmen, I have come up with an organization that I think will satisfy the front-line requirements for the way we deal with veterans. I am in the process of costing that now.
In terms of getting more money, I am considered a branch of the department. The department is mandated to provide all of my corporate services, less legal and communications; it is on a quid-pro-quo basis and a pay-as-you-go type of arrangement. I met with the deputy minister last night on that very matter and how we are going to proceed.
Regarding the last place of appeal, I have answered that. We do not get into the actual adjudication. We look at processes and maladministration.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I would like to make one suggestion because this is a whole new world to me. In theory, Senator Meighen may be my commanding officer but I asked the questions, and I would have liked to have been addressed and faced when you spoke to me. If relationships with both the department and veterans are important to you, I suggest you think about that.
The Chair: Would you like to wait for the second round for any further questions or do you have more to ask now?
Senator Nancy Ruth: No, I will wait and listen.
[Translation]
The Chair: Let me draw the attention to the presence among us of an honorary member of our committee, Senator Dallaire, who has always showed great interest for our deliberations. Welcome, senator.
[English]
Senator Day: Thank you, Colonel, for taking on this responsibility on behalf of veterans. We appreciate the effort you will be making. I know you will do a fine job.
First, I would like to ask about your relationship with the Royal Canadian Legion. When we talked in the past about a veterans' ombudsman, the Legion always made it clear they considered that their role. By asking this question, I am signalling that you may have some public relations work to do in that regard.
Col. Stogran: Mr. Chairman, at the risk of displaying my lack of exposure to committees, I apologize if I offend — I am just going by how I was coached.
Regarding my relationship with the Legion, shortly after returning from Afghanistan as a serving officer, I approached their Dominion Command with a view to getting involved. I felt that their role is not well understood by the young soldiers serving in Afghanistan today. I believe their role will become more important to these young people in future years, so I established a close relationship with the Dominion Command prior to taking this appointment. I know all the key players well and understand what they are facing.
As far as my relationship as the Veterans Ombudsman goes, I do not mean to downgrade or belittle their significance but I view them as another advocacy group. There is not complete agreement among the various veterans' associations; they are not all included under the Royal Canadian Legion. In fact, many groups that do not consider themselves to be under the umbrella of the Legion do very good work on behalf of the veterans they serve.
I do face a bit of a public affairs challenge. On my advisory committee, I intend to have representatives from the various veterans' communities represented and not the individual advocacy groups. However, I will certainly be calling on all the advocacy groups to provide names of people who can represent the needs of veterans. Theoretically, any one of the associations could have five or six nominations that are accepted to be represented on my board.
The final thing I might add is that we are starting off on November 5 with an information session where we are inviting representatives from as many of the advocacy groups and individual advocates as I can identify, with a view to imparting to them my operating philosophy. I want to show them that it is inclusive, that I am treating them all equally, and that I am eager to receive constructive criticism or advice from any of them.
Senator Day: I look forward to hearing more about that relationship in the future.
On another subject, we have learned from talking to Veterans Affairs Canada of their expanded role in dealing with still-serving Armed Forces personnel who are anticipating retiring for whatever reason. Veterans Affairs will be talking to those serving or still-in-uniform members to advise them of their rights and make sure they are getting the proper services.
Will you be monitoring the relationship between the Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Canada in this area of transition, where individuals are still in uniform?
Col. Stogran: Definitely. I will be monitoring as much as I can concerning the serving soldiers and their transition into the domain of Veterans Affairs. There is a huge grey area but there is a lot of effort being expended to bridge that gap. There is even a grey area between myself and the DND ombudsman.
Suffice to say, one of the things I have initiated, which we will implement in the coming months, is my own Facebook page. While I was with the Legion, I took advantage of every opportunity to speak to the young soldiers coming back from Afghanistan. I encouraged them to get involved in a Legion and perhaps start an association. Their response was, "Are you on Facebook?" because they are all there.
I hope to create a dialogue with these young people with a view to encouraging them to give us some feedback. In the final analysis, until problems are brought to the attention of our office, we should be careful about getting involved for fear of being accused of being an advocacy group ourselves. We respond to the needs of our clientele.
Senator Day: What kind of a relationship would you have with the DND ombudsman in terms of budgets? You said there is a grey area there. Can you compare the budget of the DND ombudsman with yours?
Col. Stogran: I cannot get into the details. However, the approach for this office has been to take the recommendations of the task force that were put in place. Basically, it made a proposal that the Veterans Affairs ombudsman should be a mirror image of the DND ombudsman. The powers that be arbitrarily decided to cut it down in size and stature to be more on par with the new ombudsmen coming online with taxation, victims of crime and PWGSC. Without knowing the exact details about magnitude, we are about half the size and my rank is significantly less than that of the DND ombudsman.
The Chair: For the record and for my information, could you tell us what the acronym you just mentioned — PWGSC — stands for?
Col. Stogran: Public Works and Government Services Canada.
Senator Day: That would be the procurement ombudsman you are talking about.
Col. Stogran: Yes.
Senator Day: That has not been stood up yet, although it was promised two years ago.
Col. Stogran: I was at a conference last week and met some individuals from that office. I have been working closely with the DND ombudsman. My impressions are that, if we are looking at fielding anywhere near the volume of complaints coming our way, the office is not large enough. We anticipate we will have an intake twice that of DND.
Based on my experiences to date with the wide variety of complaints coming our way — and I am going back to my Armed Forces days where I was in the chain of command and had soldiers who were taking advantage of the DND ombudsman, as well as being investigated a couple of times by the DND ombudsman myself — our complaints are often much more complex. One of my biggest challenges will be to inform the many veterans who might have a distorted idea of what they are entitled to from veterans services. That distorted view is not the fault of the veterans because a complex web of legalese, et cetera, comes out of that office. This means communications, outreach and work with the veterans will be a huge problem.
As I said in my opening comments, I do not want veterans to think they will phone a central number and become a file or case number to be contacted at our convenience. Rather, I want to maintain a dialogue with them and make them feel there is someone out there working on their behalf. As configured today, we will not be large enough to offer that kind of service to our veterans who deserve it.
Senator Day: I agree with you wholeheartedly. I suspect you will be going somewhere soon to say that you cannot handle the volume with the budget and personnel you have. Currently, you are within Veterans Affairs so you will be going to the deputy minister with that plea. I suggest that we will be monitoring your work. This committee is an open source for you to tell us how things are going. Included in that would be the importance of independence. If you feel you cannot do the job in an independent manner on behalf of veterans because of where your office has been placed, we would like to hear about it in the future.
Senator Banks: It is good to see you again. My question is focused and specific and deals with the nature of your relationship with DND and whether it is only through the DND ombudsman or if you have other relationships with and through DND. I ask this because of a case I know you are familiar with, of persons who have been determined by DND — not by the Department of Veterans Affairs — to be not entitled to certain benefits by virtue of being short a few service days of the minimum required. The shortfall occurred on the basis of the individuals being seconded, ordered or offered an opportunity during the last war to become instructors in the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan, BCATP. They provided that service after being in the RCAF, Royal Canadian Air Force, as it was then named, through what I assume were contracted services provided to the BCATP by flying schools, which was a fairly common thing across the country. When that was over, the individuals returned to the service and were discharged, having served the aggregate length of time counted in years. However, they were found to be not entitled to certain benefits, otherwise due a veteran, because the number of days they were in the RCAF per se did not add up to the required minimum.
I would like to know whether we might enlist you as an advocate for those persons to whom that kind of situation would apply. Could you be useful to us in that respect?
Col. Stogran: Of course, my first response is, "yes, sir." I qualify the discussion here with the term "advocate" because in the final analysis I am an advocate of fair treatment. In my relationship with the Department of National Defence, I have had contact with various individuals but, as much as possible, I try to work through the channels of the DND ombudsman who is mandated to dig into the files and go places where we are not allowed to go. I trust the office of the DND ombudsman, certainly based on their history, to act with a fair-minded approach to the veterans.
Having said that, many issues have that overlap. You mentioned one of the cases. There is another one of a widow who is complaining that her husband's medical records were destroyed illegally in the 1970s. Consequently, she and her spouse have missed out on pensions to which they should have been entitled. In the first instance, without giving veterans the impression we are handing them off and forgetting about them, we work closely with the DND ombudsman to determine whether they were fairly treated at the time. That is one side of the coin. At the risk of exposing myself to undue criticism, when it comes into my bailiwick, I will decide whether Veterans Affairs is treating them fairly. In the first cut, they rely on documentation from DND but finally, for whatever reason, we can exercise some kind of latitude to treat a veteran in a way that we think is fair. That is where I would pick up the sabre and mount the charge.
Senator Banks: Officials from DND appeared before the committee and explained that, while they sympathize with the cases I have described, the formal determination as to whether one was a veteran in the qualifying sense is made not by Veterans Affairs but by DND. Therefore, we are trying to go in that direction. I hope to pursue that with the DND ombudsman at some time.
Col. Stogran: If I may add to that — that might be right, it might be in accordance with policy and be the legal definition, but is it fair? That remains to be seen.
Senator Banks: That is the question. I earnestly solicit your participation in pursuing that on behalf of veterans. They are veterans because it is only a matter of a few days. I am glad you have taken notice that, in this place, we actually talk to each other as opposed to the other place where they do not.
The Chair: To get it clear in my mind, regardless of the legalities or regulations, you see it as your job to advocate for fairness.
Col. Stogran: Yes, that about sums it up.
The Chair: We do not need to worry too much about what the lawyers say. At least, this is not the end of the story.
Senator Dallaire: I apologize for being late. I was in caucus. Colonel Stogran, I am enormously happy to see you filling that position. They have chosen well and I wish you nothing but the best in your duties. Your sense of duty, fair play and loyalty throughout will be tested as you accomplish your mission.
Where will you setting up shop?
Col. Stogran: We are located in Constitution Square at 360 Albert Street in Ottawa, although some of our intake and administrative staff will be in Charlottetown.
Senator Dallaire: Will you travel between the two locations?
Col. Stogran: Yes.
Senator Dallaire: Your presence in Charlottetown is critical because, although you have the big boys here, the nuts and bolts are down there. I hope you will look at that aspect.
Will you look at policies even if you have no complaints? For example, you are arriving right when the New Veterans Charter is being implemented. This charter was written to provide the minister an enormous amount of flexibility, contrary to the previous charter, which was restrictive and deliberate and did not give much room either to the minister or the staff. This one was written with the idea that the minister is to manoeuvre with flexibility, which means that a minister can be rapidly undermined or fiddled with by the staff.
Because the minister has lots of room to manoeuvre, that gives the staff room to write their own rules and say: "This is what we want to do. There is no other legislation limiting us. We can create processes and systems that could be worse than what we had before."
Are you in a position, within your terms of reference, to say that you will constantly monitor how the charter is being interpreted, how procedures are being written up and whether the spirit of the charter will be maintained, or will we see it starting to be manoeuvred by the bureaucracy?
Col. Stogran: First, I am allowed to initiate investigations on my own. Second, of course, the New Veterans Charter is already in our sights. We have received an important complaint from a member who was wounded recently in Afghanistan. His serious wounds were exactly the same as those of a colleague of his who was wounded under the War Service Act. He is concerned that he has been given short shrift.
We are collecting information on this complaint and it is the focus of one of our ongoing studies with a view to ensuring it is just.
One of the concerns or complications is that the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group is reworking this as they go along. Our office has not yet had a chance to get in front of the power curve on this because there is work ongoing.
Concerning the regulations and policies that might fall out of the interpretation of the legislation, that is exactly where I become involved. Originally, in looking at my job, I thought it would be a lot different from the Department of National Defence ombudsman in that, within DND, the ombudsman almost acts as a union representative because he deals with clients within the department. My clients would be more analogous to the DND ombudsman working with the Afghan people overseas, outside of the department.
What I found in my visits is that some of the front-line public servants who work for veterans services have pulled me alongside, saying: "Once you are up and running, come and talk to us and we will tell you some of the things that need to be fixed here."
I get the feeling that once we establish our credibility and demonstrate that confidentiality is a pillar we will uphold, the front-line workers will feel comfortable in coming to us in situations where these policies might not reflect the needs of the veterans, in the workers' perception. That is my mandate.
Senator Dallaire: Does that mean you can act in an ombudsman-like fashion in relation to staff problems and not just for clients, or would you be curtailed from doing so because of the public service unions?
Col. Stogran: I am not sure about the public union service side of it, but I am certainly stretching my mandate if my suspicions prove out and we start taking complaints from public servants. Then my mandate is strictly for clients in receipt of services from Veterans Affairs.
Senator Dallaire: You would not be able to initiate it but could you, through the process of reviewing policies and how they are interpreted, get to the public servant and hear him or her?
Col. Stogran: Yes. We have worked together in the past. I will keep going until someone stops. To me, the absence of direction is an opportunity as long as I do not violate certain principles.
Senator Dallaire: I just wanted to note for the record that we have spoken about this issue.
With respect to the advisory group, it created the reform originally and now they have created a new group to look at the implementation of the charter. Is the advisory group's composition and role in relation to the minister or just to the deputy minister? You are in relation to the minister, right?
Col. Stogran: Yes. I could not begin to comment on the relationship with the advisory board.
Senator Dallaire: That in itself is a critical, positive tool as a watchdog monitoring them.
The Veterans Bill of Rights, which was a major point, signed by Prime Minister Harper and Minister Thompson is not a bill, right? It is not a legislative bill; it is a statement.
In starting the whole process, we were going after a social contract between the people of Canada, through the government, and those in uniform, including the RCMP — and a social contract that would be a bill. We have the charter, which is going down that path, but we still do not have, even though this document exists, a fundamental statement between the unlimited liability clause in the military, and now with the RCMP, and the people of Canada.
As you are looking down this road, do you envision any other requirements that might be coming up of that scale, or am I just dropping you a hint? It is fine if I am dropping a hint.
Col. Stogran: Hint taken.
Senator Dallaire: Thank you.
DND now has a policy that when troops are injured, they will keep them almost automatically for three years, with almost no question, and try to do rehabilitation, re-employment and so on. Only if it is of benefit to both parties that the troops do not stay in does DND do less than that.
I come back to Senator Day's question. When men are injured, their files are open, they are in uniform, but they have to file with Veterans Affairs. They can have access to pensions, et cetera. How is a staff procedure created between your monitoring what the individual is telling you of his or her problems, and the individual telling DND of his or her problems? Will there be a means by which the two of you will be able to arbitrate if you come up with a different answer as to how the person should be treated?
Col. Stogran: That is a good question. We have not encountered a situation like that. As the situation stands now, there is no higher authority. It has been suggested that we do require a federal ombudsman that ties all of these various offices together, but it is well beyond my pay grade to be able to comment on that.
Perhaps it is my naïveté but I would find it difficult, depending on who is in the office, to imagine ombudsmen who do not sing from the same song sheet. Since I have been learning about the ombudsman profession, I am amazed by the ethos they maintain, even in circumstances within universities and such, where they amount to not much more than a complaints department, but it has a standard of actions.
I certainly have not encountered that situation, and I could not comment on whether arbitration will be needed in the future.
Senator Dallaire: I raise the issue because both of you could be played off against each other by less-than-ethical clients. There may be times when there will be friction, and it would be interesting to see how that would be resolved. There could be two ministers going against each other. The synergy between the two of you could be extraordinary, if that is possible, in resolving these problems.
Col. Stogran: The Canadian Forces Superannuation Act could be a source of friction because it impacts on veterans.
Senator Dallaire: With respect to RCMP files, have you met with the RCMP association and that gang of bandits out there?
Col. Stogran: Yes.
Senator Dallaire: Are they at ease with your position?
Col. Stogran: Yes. We have no files open with RCMP members as it stands. Bill Gidley, the executive director of the RCMP Veterans' Association, tells me that things are going well within the association. Their big concern right now is they would like a VIP type of arrangement for their veterans. That is all I know of the RCMP as it stands right now.
Senator Dallaire: The Veterans Review and Appeal Board has been a source of much controversy over many years not necessarily in its answers, although we appeal for it from time to time, but there has been a lot on the composition, the people who sit on it. More information has been forthcoming of a shift in membership where possibly ex-members of the Canadian Forces and the RCMP are not appreciated to be members. It is going more and more to legal people such as lawyers.
The appeal board in its concept was a human review and not purely a technical, judicial piece of equipment. It was one with a very human face, with human beings who could look at it, sense and then come to a conclusion.
Would you be in a position to look at the hiring policies of the appeal board and what principles they are using? Could you go that far?
Col. Stogran: My instincts tell me right now, yes, if it impinges on the domain of the fair treatment of our veterans. In terms of the approach, we would take a broader one than just looking at the Veterans Review and Appeal Board and perhaps compare it to other quasi-judicial entities in Canada and allied countries, for example.
It would be more than just a comment on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board itself. I say that because there are complaints on the other side about it being a little too informal, that there are not enough medical practitioners involved and some unqualified people are making judgments with no understanding of the medical implications they are facing. There is a question of precedence.
Senator Dallaire: Historically, the worst people on those boards were the military because they felt these guys were wimping out and just wanted to rip off the system. There was a massive change in the 1970s, but now there is a movement to make the board full of lawyers. That will be a terrible orientation. A balance is required with medical people and lawyers, but practitioners also.
Col. Stogran: That is one of the areas where we are gathering facts now. We have had complaints of the nature already discussed and other things such as precedents are not being followed. The legislated definition of "benefit of the doubt" is not being followed. We are keeping our powder dry right now and collecting information.
Once we get up and going, I want to focus on issues and devote our human resources to issues where veterans may be suffering undue hardship or potential harm, or where age or infirmity are involved. We are looking at these issues as they come up. They are high-profile ones but we want to ensure that, when we do dedicate our resources to it, the people most in need will benefit.
Senator Dallaire: With respect to the media, it comes from two sides. When we got the ombudsman for National Defence and the Canadian Forces, at first every general wanted to string him up. We mellowed with time, yet the individual was able to communicate with the media significantly.
In your terms of reference, is there a limitation on your dealings with the media as there are with Treasury Board bureaucrats talking about policies, or do you have as much room as you want to use the media?
Col. Stogran: As it stands now, I do not have any constraints or restrictions on my access to the media. That is one arrow in my quiver that gives teeth to this organization, notwithstanding the fact that I have developed a fairly decent relationship in my Afghanistan days with several of the more prominent journalists in Canada. That will definitely be something that works to our advantage.
Senator Dallaire: Thank you very much for your answers and all the best to you.
The Chair: Just for my information, were you appointed to serve at pleasure?
Col. Stogran: Yes.
The Chair: There was no set term?
Col. Stogran: It is three years, renewable, and removable with cause.
The Chair: Renewable once or twice?
Col. Stogran: Actually, I have not looked beyond my first three-year mandate.
The Chair: You are so young that I thought you would consider two.
Col. Stogran: I think the mark of my success is if they do not renew me for another three years.
The Chair: The sign of your success is if you have nothing to do. That would not be so much your success but Veterans Affairs' success. Much as we might hope, I doubt that would be the case.
Could you explain your reporting mechanism, what it is legally and, perhaps more importantly, how you see it in a non-legal sense? Obviously, there are non-legal reporting relationships that might bring about better results than if you have to go the legal route. Tell me the legal route first.
Col. Stogran: I report to the minister. I am obligated in my mandate to submit an annual report. It goes to Parliament but I submit it through the minister. The minister has up to 60 days to review it at which point it must go forward. I am assuming that it goes forward in an unedited state.
I report to the minister. I am accountable to the deputy minister on certain financial and corporate functions. Until now, I have not reported to anyone. The minister has given me carte blanche and complete free rein to set up the office.
The Chair: For example, in the case that Senator Banks was describing, let us suppose it came to you or you took the initiative, looked into it and determined it was unfair for this individual to have been denied a pension. Even though legally he did not meet the minimum service requirements, the reasons why were explained, and this was an unfair decision. Let us suppose you decided that a month from now. What do you do then? Do you wait until the end of the year to put it in your report?
Col. Stogran: If I can go back to Senator Dallaire's comment on the way the initial DND ombudsman operated, he had tremendous success with his approach. I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Morin. He mentored me in the last couple of months. He used to use the term "chain of command" in a caustic fashion that turned off the chain of command.
My approach was to avoid that kind of confrontational relationship. I have been warned by my staff to use the term "bureaucrat" a little less and "public servant" a little more.
My intention is to work as much as possible behind the scenes. If things are coming out into the open that are blatantly unfair, my first approach would be to go to the offices involved with a view to trying to work it out before it becomes public.
I am allowed at any time to submit a report on an issue in any fashion that I desire. It is only our annual report, which comes out in the fall, that we are expected to put through the minister.
The Chair: Therefore, it would be your feeling that moral suasion and one-on-one are the methods you would look to before looking to any legal methods to achieve success. Are your files, when you are involved in them, public knowledge in any way, shape or form? If someone asked whether you are investigating the case of Mr. Smith, are you allowed to or not?
Col. Stogran: No. We try to maintain the confidentiality of not only the complainants but also any witnesses or others involved. There are certain situations where issues have to be discussed but we try to protect confidentiality.
The Chair: What if I filed an access to information request?
Col. Stogran: That is another issue. It would depend, of course, on the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and whether you would be entitled to that information.
The Chair: I appreciate that I am straying from your mandate.
Senator Kenny: Colonel, I want to clarify your answer to Senator Meighen about the nature of your appointment. You first said you served at pleasure and then you said you were removable only for cause.
Col. Stogran: I was mistaken. I am removable for cause.
Senator Banks: On the issue the Chair was asking about, I am reading from the section of the mandate of your office, I think. Section 10(1) says:
The Ombudsman may issue reports, with or without recommendations, at any time concerning any review or other matter that is within the Ombudsman's mandate.
Section 10(5) says:
The Ombudsman may publish any report, other than the annual report. . .
— which would be a report as contemplated in subsection (1) —
. . . on the expiry of 60 days after it has been submitted to the Minister.
Is section 10(1) subject to section 10(5)?
Col. Stogran: Not on my reading of it.
Senator Banks: Not on mine either, but you would know better than I.
Col. Stogran: I have not been tested as yet.
The Chair: I am sure you will not be found wanting.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Colonel, could you give me more stories of the kinds of cases that might come before you in order that I have a bigger image?
Col. Stogran: An example that comes to mind is nine pieces of correspondence that were exchanged between the veterans' services and an individual to collect $60. We thought we had slain that one in the fall, but we got a supplemental complaint in the spring.
The problem with loss of hearing benefits is a recurring theme.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Do you mean that they cannot get satisfaction with other available mechanisms?
Col. Stogran: Yes, or the existing documentation does not necessarily attribute the loss of hearing to service. As an example, one complaint was from a person who worked in the Royal Canadian Corps of Signals. In the days before they had a squelch, he wore a headset that constantly blared in his ear. He never reported the problem. It was simply a fact of life that he had to wear the headset, but now his hearing is very bad and he believes it is because of his exposure to that. It was never documented while he was in the Forces.
The Chair: Has there not recently been a relaxation in the requirements to establish hearing loss?
Col. Stogran: Yes, but I could not say how it impacts on that person.
The Chair: I am not talking about that case in particular, but there has generally been a recognition that a difficulty existed and there has been a relaxation.
Col. Stogran: Yes, that is correct.
There have been complaints about the New Veterans Charter, as mentioned. There is a concern that the financial benefits are not as good under the current system, and we are collecting information on that.
For some reason I am drawing a blank now, although I have 300 complaints to go through.
Senator Nancy Ruth: That is okay. It is my impression that you are keen to work behind the scenes and to do things as quietly as possible rather than to come out blasting, unless you have to. That is a good idea.
I asked you what kind of lawyers you were going to hire because I wanted to know whether you were doing labour law or moving into constitutional law. You have made a great point of saying it is fair and legal, but my sense of you as a man is that you are interested in fair and just. To do "fair and just" often means going to the courts or doing something. It is not quiet.
Col. Stogran: I do have a fairly senior legal adviser and a legal staff that would be advising me. However, we are not in the business of going to the courts. It is our job to identify maladministration where people are being mistreated. In fact, in the realm of being an ombudsman, you do not want to become part of the solution because then you become part of the problem. The goal is to make a judgment and present recommendations. You want to be a third party and not get drawn into actually trying to solve the problem.
I do not foresee ever being involved in legal issues. Having said that, I have legal staff to ensure I do not get into illegal issues.
Senator Nancy Ruth: How big is your legal staff?
Col. Stogran: There is a lawyer and a paralegal.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Thank you.
The Chair: Did you not say, in answer to my question, that regardless of the legalities of the matter you were looking primarily at fairness and, even if you determined on a legal basis that the decision was legally justified, it could still be unfair and thereby cause you to say that a situation is unfair and should not go forward as such?
Col. Stogran: Yes. Some cases have been brought before the courts and judged to be within legal bounds, but I believe there are other legal means that might be fairer to the individual.
We must be careful that we do not interfere with the adjudicative process and court decisions but, at the same time, there is scope for an ombudsman to comment on the fairness of a case, even though it might be completely legal.
Senator Dallaire: The spirit of the Veterans Charter was to grant the minister much broader options for decisions without having to refer to legal processes that were caught up in legislation. If the spirit works well, and if the staff have not created a plethora of rules and regulations subordinate to the spirit of the charter, the minister now should be able to handle an enormous amount of decisions whereas before he was forced to take the legal route.
We are trying to give him the opportunity to avoid the legal side. We are worried about the legal branch getting involved in the appeal board because they are bringing a whole different attitude to the problem.
The Chair: If it worked that way, as it does, you would not have much to do.
Senator Dallaire: If Colonel Stogran is able to monitor the installation of the rules and regulations the department has created as a result of the charter, he will smell whether they have built an empire which will permit someone at a certain level to decide that someone is not getting assistance, because they will have ministerial authority. Any smell of that will destroy the whole concept. An ombudsman was an important facet of the new charter and it was wise to go that route.
Senator Banks: I am looking at the section called "Limitations on Authority" of your office. Section 5(e) says that you shall not review matters within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police apart from those matters which have been expressly assigned to be administered by Veterans Affairs.
What are those?
My second question follows on the example that you gave to Senator Nancy Ruth where a guy says his hearing has been hurt. The minister has put into place the regulations by which a decision is made that he does not qualify for benefits, and that veteran enjoys a right of review or appeal to the board in respect of that decision. Section 5(a) says you may not review any such decision. You may not review "any decision of the Minister for which there is a right of review or appeal to the Board;".
In a hypothetical situation where a veteran said my hearing has been impaired, and the minister or someone on behalf of the minister has decided that he or she is not entitled to the benefits, and that veteran enjoys a right of review or appeal to the board, is it correct that you may not undertake a review of that file?
Col. Stogran: Yes. In essence, until a complainant has exhausted all avenues of review and appeal, we are not to get involved.
Senator Banks: Once that right of review or appeal to the board has been exercised, then you can undertake a review?
Col. Stogran: From an administrative perspective, yes, that the person was treated fairly throughout.
Senator Banks: So the prohibition ends when the board has made a decision that you would consider to be unfair? You can then review the situation?
Col. Stogran: If they have gone through the review and appeal process, yes. They can take it as far as the Federal Court where there would be a court ruling, which has happened on occasion.
Senator Banks: The Mounties.
Col. Stogran: Yes, I do not have the details of the services provided there, but I can get back to you with that information. My conversations with the RCMP association are that everything is copacetic for now. I have been focused in other areas.
Senator Banks: I would be grateful if you would provide that to the clerk when you can.
Senator Day: I am looking at the document that Brigadier-General Cox has made available to us. It is titled JUS and then a number. Is this "Justice"? Is that a Canada Gazette number? This is at: "Whereas, pursuant to . . . the Public Service Employment Act, the Governor in Council may appoint a special adviser to a minister;". Then it goes on and says that you are that appointee as a special adviser to the minister. Is this all an administrative process that you have been appointed to, or was this gazetted so it becomes public knowledge? Are the terms and conditions of your employment outlined in this particular document?
Col. Stogran: Yes.
Senator Day: Then it can be changed presumably the same way by the Governor-in-Council at any time if they want to make an amendment? This does not come back to Parliament, for example, and we, as lawmakers, do not get to see this or comment on it? It is not a regulation, and it is not a law?
Col. Stogran: That is my understanding.
Senator Day: These are the terms of reference of your employment, and you are a special adviser to the minister?
Col. Stogran: Yes.
Senator Day: The point that was made earlier about your report in section 9 entitled "Accountability and Annual Report" — you are to report directly to and are accountable to the minister as the minister's special adviser. The ombudsman shall submit an annual report, and you were wondering if the minister could change it. I do not see where the minister could do that because the minister shall table the annual report in Parliament. However, it does not say when. It says he shall some time. I see no time limit on this.
Col. Stogran: My understanding is within 60 days.
Senator Day: That is for any other report you might want to give him. That is down in section 10. For your annual report, if the minister does not like it, he sits on it. He does not change it, but you cannot publish it until the minister files it in Parliament, and there is no time limit for the minister to file it in Parliament.
Senator Banks: That depends on your definition of the word "shall."
Senator Day: "Shall" without a time limit.
Col. Stogran: Clearly, I have an infantryman's interpretation of that, and I do not yet have my lawyer on staff.
Senator Day: You mentioned you have one lawyer and a paralegal. Is that under your budget?
Col. Stogran: Yes.
Senator Day: Is it the same for the communications person — that is your budget and not the Veterans Affairs' budget?
Col. Stogran: Yes.
Senator Day: You have the right to issue the other reports at any time, which I think is an important right. You may issue reports with or without recommendations at any time, and then under section 10(5): "The Ombudsman may publish any report, other than the annual report, on the expiry of 60 days. . ."
That is the 60-day period we were talking about earlier. Any report, other than the annual report, can be published within 60 days.
Senator Banks: Excuse me, Senator Day. When I asked that question, the Colonel replied that he did not think section 10(1) was subject to 10(5).
Senator Day: He may want to talk to his legal counsel about that. I suspect legal counsel may say it could be interpreted in another fashion.
Senator Banks: It is susceptible to interpretation.
Senator Day: What concerns me is the point I made earlier, Colonel, about your independence. For you to be effective in this job and be able to comment on government and departmental programs, which in your mandate you are supposed to be able to do, and to be able to comment on what the board is doing and review systemic issues related to it, you seem to be awfully tied into the minister as an adviser.
I want to ensure that, in setting up your department and organization, you have the independence, financial independence, you have a budget determined and is not taken away if they do not like what you are doing. We do not want that to happen. We want you to feel free to comment on systemic matters of the board and the department if the department is not doing things. You have the mandate but there are an awful lot of controls on how you handle that mandate.
Col. Stogran: Yes. I am concerned about that for my successor. I do not see that necessarily as being an impediment to the way I intend to do business. I have not seen the minister since he announced my appointment back in October, I believe it was. I have been doing this without any influence or constraints at all.
Yesterday, I met with the deputy minister. I have drafted out a memorandum of understanding regarding the way we will relate to each other on operations.
Corporate services have a separate memorandum of understanding. I have drafted up my own, and one of my concerns is that through corporate services my independence could be constrained. We had quite a discussion last night. Down to senior administrative meetings, I want to have a representative present so I can be confident that nothing discussed or decided will impinge or constrain my abilities to carry out my mandate. There is potential there, indeed. As I said, personally, I would not accept anything less. That is the agreement, if you will, that I came into the job with. Regarding my future replacement, I could be concerned about that.
Senator Day: The reason I was asking about your communications people being your communications people is you will understand that a lot of people in your position, like the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the Auditor General — I do not want to call them officers of Parliament but agents who are supposed to be independent of government — sometimes find themselves unable to achieve anything unless they can publish their reports and bring them out and get public opinion on their side on some of these issues.
You are being asked to deal with systemic matters and bring out any systemic problems you see regarding programs which, in effect, are programs of the government, the department's programs. It is important that you establish that ability to exercise your mandate.
Col. Stogran: Yes. I fully expect to start testing that in the coming weeks in terms of investigations on systemic problems, as we perceive it. I have ensured that our communications capacity is enough to operate independently from the minister. I recognize that, while we may be producing a communications plan to expose something, the departmental communicators will be trying to find a way of spinning something else perhaps, and that could create a huge conflict of interest. I am confident we have complete independence on that. I think the Ontario ombudsman is in an excellent position because he is legislated, and it is a simple three-page document that gives him the right to subpoena individuals and compel the submission of documentation. There is potential for the office of the ombudsman to be abused. I can only say I am coming into this job fully aware of that, but also confident that I have the kind of way of doing business where I would expose that.
Senator Day: We are confident in your abilities as well.
Col. Stogran: Thank you.
The Chair: We should wrap up fairly soon. The last questioner will be Senator Nancy Ruth.
Senator Nancy Ruth: This is about the RCMP. The things that you do not review include matters within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RCMP apart from those matters that have been expressly assigned to be administered by the department. Are the pensions and all that stuff for the RCMP done by Veterans Affairs?
Col. Stogran: No, only certain portions of it.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Could you include that with the answer to Senator Banks?
Col. Stogran: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you, Col. Stogran. You made reference to voluntary groups with which you are in contact. Would you be able to give us a list of those? It would help us in identifying people we may want to ask if they would come before us.
Col. Stogran: Are you referring to the information session in March?
The Chair: You said you had a list of voluntary advocacy groups.
Col. Stogran: Yes.
The Chair: Could you give that to the clerk?
Col. Stogran: Yes.
The Chair: Honourable senators, next week, February 13, we have the rescheduled testimony of the Royal Canadian Legion. I hope you will all be able to be here. We will not meet again until February 27. I know all honourable senators will want to be on time for the minister. We may or may not have a meeting on March 5 to discuss future business and budgets. I doubt for a variety of reasons that, between now and the end of March, we will be able to travel anywhere. March 5 may be a chance for us to review our workload in the new fiscal year.
Are there any other comments or questions or admonitions to put before us?
Senator Kenny: I do not think you will be here on March 5.
The Chair: I may not but no one is indispensable. Perhaps the entire committee will be absent. Thank you, honourable senators. This meeting is adjourned.
The committee adjourned.