Proceedings of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs
Issue 1 - Evidence - May 6, 2009
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 6, 2009
The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 12:16 p.m. to study on the services and benefits provided to members of the Canadian Forces; to veterans who have served honourably in Her Majesty's Canadian armed forces in the past; to members and former members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and its antecedents; and all of their families.
Senator Michael A. Meighen (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I would like to call to order this meeting of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs. First, I should express a welcome to all senators to the first meeting in this parliamentary session.
We are gathered to hear testimony of Colonel (Ret'd) Patrick Stogran. Colonel Stogran retired in 2007 after a long and distinguished career in the Canadian Forces in order to take up his current appointment as the Veterans Ombudsman.
The aim of this meeting is to seek the views of the Veterans Ombudsman on principal issues facing the veterans' community in Canada and to review the status of its office. Colonel Stogran appeared before this subcommittee on February 6, 2008.
The Veterans Ombudsman is an impartial, arms-length independent officer with a responsibility to assist veterans to pursue their concerns and advance their issues. It is also intended that the appointment will raise awareness of the needs and concerns of veterans and enhance the confidence of veterans that their views are important, which indeed they are.
The ombudsman is mandated to uphold the Veterans Bill of Rights and review individual and systemic issues arising out of it.
[Translation]
The mandate of the ombudsman shall be
(a) to review and address complaints by clients and their representatives arising from the application of the provisions of the Veterans Bill of Rights;
(b) to identify and review emerging systemic issues related to programs and services provided or administered by the department or by third parties on the department's behalf that impact negatively on clients;
(c) to review and address complaints by clients and their representatives related to programs and services provided or administered by the department or by third parties on the department's behalf, including individual decisions related to the programs and services for which there is no right of appeal to the board;
(d) to review systemic issues related to the board; and
(e) to facilitate access by clients to programs and services by providing them with information and referrals.
[English]
Colonel Stogran, we welcome you today. It is nice to have you back with us.
Before I begin, I will introduce the members of the committee who are present today. The Deputy Chair of our subcommittee is Senator Banks from Alberta. We are also fortunate enough to have with us Senator Day from New Brunswick, a former deputy chair and former chair of this committee; and, of course, Senator Kenny, on my left, is the chair of our parent committee, the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. We are also fortunate to have Senator Downe from Prince Edward Island, who has a particular interest in matters relating to veterans, and I should introduce, not the least, of course, Senator Wallin, who is from Saskatchewan. I think this is Senator Wallin's first time at the committee. We welcome you, Senator Wallin. We also have Senator Manning from Newfoundland. This is his first meeting also, I think.
Colonel Stogran, I understand you have a short statement, which I invite you to give. Following that, I am sure there will be questions from senators.
Colonel (Ret'd) Patrick Stogran, Veterans Ombudsman: Thank you very much for the opportunity to meet with you today.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, by agreeing to become Veterans Ombudsman, I promised I would do my best to serve veterans and to establish the same working conditions for staff that I am committed to upholding. So far, it has been an uphill battle, and I would say that I probably deserve a failing grade in my role as ombudsman. Despite our best efforts, many veterans still face a number of increasingly complicated systemic issues arising from acts, regulations and policies, and we continue to tackle those issues.
[English]
On the first day of my appointment, I expressed my intention to work collaboratively with Veterans Affairs Canada. However, I was warned that our stakeholders — and I call stakeholders anybody who holds a stake in having a veterans ombudsman — could interpret collaboration as collusion with the organization that has been the source of their frustrations. I have avoided expressing that intent because I do not want to jeopardize the trust that our stakeholders have in our office. Notwithstanding, I have spent a year trying to establish a non-adversarial and transparent relationship with the department. In fact, I spent yesterday at the district offices in Halifax, speaking with their middle management. I have also repeatedly expressed my commitment to avoid, if possible, detracting from any trust and confidence the veterans have in Veterans Affairs Canada.
To date, however, our office has been met with ambivalence from the department.
[Translation]
For instance, for almost a year now, I have been urging the department to deal with the issue of homeless veterans. I have visited homeless shelters and veterans' homes, and I have never seen any sign of VAC's involvement with this group.
The Office of the Veterans Ombudsman recently submitted its first official report to the department and has asked management to comment on it. VAC has indicated that it can comment on only one of the seven recommendations in the report, which is on the verge of being sent to the minister.
[English]
The department continues to deny us access to information and meetings with departmental staff. The effective and efficient provision of corporate services and human resource management services — a measure of economy that has us dovetailed with those departments within the department, by VAC — has been a problematic situation.
We continue to work through these issues but a lot more remains to be done. I am also in the process of making significant changes intended to enhance our ability to raise awareness of the needs and concerns of veterans.
Notwithstanding the failing grade I give myself, and I emphasize "myself," for the lack of impact we have made on the more complex issues that challenge our veterans, we have enjoyed a considerable degree of success out of the public eye. Our front line staff has received well over 5,000 calls from stakeholders, opened over 1,700 files and successfully intervened on behalf of our stakeholders on over 400 occasions. These small victories are one of the things that have kept me going to work, despite the pressures from all sides towards the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman. The other reason is the staff of the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman, which has volunteered to shoulder that burden alongside of me. I mention also the front line workers in the district offices who have to deal with the daily stress of trying to improve the lives and well-being of our veterans despite a system that is sometimes less than empathetic. To them I owe a huge debt of gratitude.
In conclusion, the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman has not been treated as one would expect an arm's-length ombudsman should be treated. The word "ombudsman" is a Swedish word that translates loosely as "public defender." However, our relationship with the department has been more akin to that of a complaints section.
The icon of the world of "ombudsmanry," Mr. Andre Marin, past ombudsman for the Department of National Defence/Canadian Forces, DND/CF, and currently defending the people of Ontario, has long advocated for the imperative of legislated powers for an ombudsman. As I live and learn the work of an ombudsman, I can certainly understand what motivates that assertion.
Once again, thank you for inviting me back to meet with you at the mid-term of my tenure. In keeping with two of the four hallmarks of our office — those being objectivity and transparency — I look forward to responding to your questions as frankly and accurately as I can.
Senator Wallin: I want to get into the technical questions to clarify your mandate and relationship with VAC and the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.
Do you see yourself as completely separate and apart from the department or do you see yourself working with and alongside the department, in your day-to-day work?
Col. Stogran: Once again, I see myself working collaboratively, if you will, in order to advance the veterans' issues. Officially, via the announcement of the Prime Minister on April 3, 2007, we were announced as an arm's-length organization to raise the awareness of the needs and concerns of veterans. "Arm's length" is a legal term for independence and I exercise my independence, which I define as my ability to make my own decisions regarding the fair treatment of veterans in accordance with the Veterans Bill of Rights.
Senator Wallin: I am trying to establish your relationship. If you come across a veteran with a problem, what do you do?
Col. Stogran: If we come across a veteran with a problem who asks for our services, we provide the services as we are mandated. We are mandated to provide information, referrals and/or intervene on behalf of veterans. We have four levels of intervention, the first being mediating between the department and the decision maker.
When a veteran comes to us with a problem, our front line operators, our early intervention analyst's task is to come to know the veterans' situation intimately, as if it were their own. They then weed out any emotional baggage that may be carried with that complaint through the frustrations they have had with the department. Then they act as a mediator to try to change decisions.
We have three other levels of intervention. The second level is modifying practices within the department to the advantage of their client. The third level is still in the department, where we actually address policies. Some of the problems are lodged in legislation and we have yet to reach any of the higher-level systemic problems. However, some of the problems are at that level.
The Chair: What happens when the problem can be taken before the Veterans Review and Appeal Board? It is only when that avenue is closed that you intervene; am I correct?
Col. Stogran: Yes, sir. For the complaints that come to us, the veterans are compelled to exhaust the existing redress system except if there are compelling circumstances. Those compelling circumstances can be that the process has taken too long; that the individual will suffer undue hardship, and I see that as being financial or physical hardship, causing harm to somebody else; and there is a third condition. There are compelling circumstances where we are allowed to intervene.
We are prohibited from reviewing decisions of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, which is a quasi-judicial system, as well as legal advice and legal judgment, those types of matters.
We are currently in a legal discussion, if you will, with the department regarding the definition of "to review." I view "to review" in terms of the prohibition to review legal documents, judgment and decisions of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. I view that to be in accordance with the definition held in the Pension Act and the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act, which defines "to review" as to hear, determine, and deal with issues.
The department, on the other hand, sees "to review" as having access to or the ability to read any documents. We have been prohibited from reading documents such as legal advice on certain issues.
The definition of "to review," if it is taken literally as "to read," we would be prohibited from reading legal judgments that are in fact public access, out in the street. That remains as point of contention for us.
Where we can get involved — and we have yet to exercise our involvement with the Veterans Review and Appeal Board — is where there are systemic problems, where the system is letting our veterans down. A large number of our complaints are from the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. Now that I have legal counsel on my staff, we are looking seriously at how to move ahead on those issues.
Senator Wallin: From the notes that we have from a variety of sources, you have had about 5,000 inquiries from veterans, of which about 1,700 have proceeded as case files to be investigated, so you are dealing with VAC in that context.
Col. Stogran: Yes.
Senator Wallin: You have spoken about dealing with homeless veterans. For example, if you walk into a homeless shelter in any city in Canada and find a veteran, what do you do?
Col. Stogran: That is a very broad statement. It depends on the circumstances. In the first instance, I respect the right to privacy and the pride of the individual in that shelter. Homeless people are entitled to all of the rights and protections under the Privacy Act, in the first instance.
If the veteran asks for assistance, as some have, then in all instances where we are asked to assist and intervene on behalf of a veteran, the priority is to look after the interests of that individual. If it contributes to a systemic issue, then that becomes part of that case file set. Without exception, when we are asked to assist someone — and we have been asked by homeless veterans — we take it to the department. Homelessness, in itself, is not a cry for help. These people are proud and they are private.
Senator Wallin: I am trying to get at that exact point. If you are visiting a shelter in your official capacity and either someone reaches out to you or someone suggests to you that the person sitting over there is a veteran and could be in need of help, what do you do? Do you introduce yourself as the Veterans Ombudsman and ask if the veteran has any concerns or complaints about the department? Alternatively, do you ask if the veteran has been in touch with the department and that has not worked out?
How do you deal with this? I am trying to find out the difference between your office and the department, because the department is doing outreach as well; they have people going to homeless shelters all the time. I am trying to figure out how the process works.
Col. Stogran: We have encountered that from the department. I spent 30 years of my career inspecting organizations for combat readiness to deploy overseas. When I see that something that should be happening is not happening I realize that there is a problem.
The situation with the homeless is that the department speaks in broad generalities. In the 10 shelters I have visited, I have met homeless veterans. In not one of those shelters did I see posters or brochures to inform the veterans of their rights. My experience is that the directors and padres did not have the information to give to the veterans on who to contact for help.
Senator Wallin: These are anecdotal comments.
Col. Stogran: I would say it is operational inspections. It is first person singular.
Senator Wallin: Certainly the department says that they are doing outreach, as well as you are doing outreach. I am trying to figure out what you do as your outreach. If the veteran tells you that he or she is in need of help and assistance, or you learn it from some process, what do you do?
Col. Stogran: We take it to the department.
Senator Wallin: That is your first line?
Col. Stogran: Absolutely. We are not in the business of solving veterans' problems. We are in the business of making sure the system acts responsibly on behalf of the veterans.
In the case of homeless veterans, this is a gap in services. This is not provided. What we have seen on the ground and what the department has provided us, and as far as we can tell from the information that we have access to, are local initiatives, not departmental.
Senator Wallin: You mean local offices of the department?
Col. Stogran: District offices, conscientious employees of Veterans Affairs Canada.
Senator Wallin: Does that not count?
Col. Stogran: No, it does not count. It is a gap in programs. The briefing note that I have seen from the department describes all sorts of services that are available to homeless veterans, such as housekeeping and groundskeeping. Those are included in the department's assessment of what services are available to homeless people.
On the one hand, they speak in generalities, as if these measures are all available to the homeless. What I am seeing in terms of specifics — and I am asked to define those specifics — is a lack of engagement.
Senator Wallin: The department says that they have staff in their district offices. Presumably that is why you have a district office, so that not everyone has to fly from headquarters to go to the local shelters; is that correct? Do you think that is reasonable?
Col. Stogran: Yes.
Senator Wallin: Their outreach activities include visiting shelters, food banks, working with local community agencies and veterans organizations. Do you agree that that occurs?
Col. Stogran: I have seen no evidence of that.
Senator Wallin: Okay. The people that run these shelters have said there has never been a person from the department —
Col. Stogran: Without exception, across this country. I visited 10 shelters, two in Toronto and four here in the local area, as recently as this week.
Senator Wallin: Let us go back to the specific. You said that the office is not in the business of solving problems, so you take the case of the individual and you pick up the phone. I am just trying to understand the process.
Col. Stogran: Yes. We try to resolve issues at the lowest possible level, and that would be within the department. We try to work with departmental staff to encourage them to fill these gaps.
Senator Wallin: Of the 5,000 inquiries that you have had from veterans, 1,700 of which have proceeded to case files, those 1,700 have responded and said: You are right. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We will put this in the system.
Col. Stogran: Yes. Some of those would be clusters, perhaps under systemic issues such as the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. Some are individual, stand-alone, lower-level type interventions, and we action those immediately.
Senator Wallin: What about the other 3,000?
Col. Stogran: Very often, they are information or referrals. In the first instance, those are the contacts, people who have come to our office. We may provide them with information or services that are available or we may refer them to another office.
Another thing I insist upon with my team members who detect a frustrated veteran, someone who has been bounced from agency to agency, is that we do a hot transfer and facilitate the engagement of the responsible organization with the veteran.
Senator Wallin: That might or might not be the department?
Col. Stogran: It might not be the department.
Senator Wallin: It might be another agency of government.
Col. Stogran: Yes, we also engage with the Government of Ontario.
Senator Wallin: So different levels of government and agencies are responding. When you call, they respond to you?
Col. Stogran: Senator, I have been overwhelmed by the empathy with the plight of the veterans. The staff in the district offices are one of our best sources of intelligence on the systemic problems. We are now in the process of doing an omnibus investigation into the red tape that exists within the department, and some of the best sources of the information regarding the frustrations of red tape in Veteran Affairs come from the district offices.
Senator Wallin: I am trying to reconcile that information. That is the sense we get when we speak with people. We get the sense that on the ground, in the cities in Winnipeg and Saskatoon and other cities, there is real engagement. You tell me that they are some of the most empathetic and responsive people, but then you say that you have never witnessed any sign of engagement at the street level. Is that not engagement?
Col. Stogran: Senator Wallin, that is because there are local engagements. There are conscientious people who can get out there and do it. I am saying there is no policy or program that has touched all the shelters — nothing that has been brought to our attention. There is a breakdown as you get up the chain of command.
Senator Wallin: But people on the ground are doing this and reacting and delivering and responding to you?
Col. Stogran: They are doing the very best they can. They are hardworking individuals.
Senator Wallin: I am trying to figure out why you have given yourself a failing report card if you are not in the business of solving problems, but we will leave that and come back to that another time.
The Chair: You say when you find someone in need who wants your help, you take it to the department, and you mentioned the problem of homelessness. Do you have an estimate of the number of homeless people whose names you referred to the department? Would it be one or 100?
Col. Stogran: I think two, sir. There is one that stands out in my mind very recently.
Senator Banks: Col. Stogran, it is very nice to see you again, notwithstanding the bleak nature of your report. I hope you are not being too self-critical.
You said that complaints come to you from the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. I take it that you met with people who have gone to the review board and have not been satisfied with the result?
Col. Stogran: Yes, sir, indeed.
Senator Banks: Did I understand you to say that the Department of Veterans Affairs lists groundskeeping, among the things they provide to homeless veterans.
Col. Stogran: Question Period notes, when we were on the distribution list for these documents, included all of the programs that existed within Veterans Affairs that were also available to the homeless people and groundskeeping was listed amongst them.
Senator Banks: Is there any program within Veterans Affairs that is aimed specifically at homeless people? Are you saying there is not?
Col. Stogran: Not to my knowledge, no, sir. There has been work at the higher levels but nothing formal that I have seen or has been offered to us by the department that has filtered down.
Senator Banks: You said that you have acquired legal counsel. When you were appointed and your office was set up, it was anticipated that you would be fully staffed, up, running, and functional by sometime in 2008. How is that going? Do you have the resources you need to do the job? Do you have the right people, the number of people, the space and the budget?
Col. Stogran: That is a broad question. In terms of how the hiring is going, we are still short of our complement of investigators, the people who look at policy and legislation.
Senator Banks: Talk about why that is so.
Col. Stogran: I would say a lot has to do with the channels of communication that we had between ourselves and the department regarding corporate services and human resource management services in that, as a measure of economy, our corporate services and HR are provided by the department. We have deliberately minimized on that kind of staff within our organization in order to maximize our operational capacity. A lot of the paperwork, in the early days, would come back for us to complete, and we just did not have that kind of horsepower. It has been an evolutionary process of understanding, on the department side, exactly what we are capable of and, conversely, what the expectation should be of the department when $1.3 million of our $6.3 million budget has been afforded to the department for our support.
Senator Banks: Your budget is $6.3 million.
Col. Stogran: Yes, sir, although we just received word of the latest budget, but it is in that neighbourhood right now. That is what was planned, yes.
Senator Banks: Some part of which, $1.3 million I think you said, is carved out of your budget in order to pay for the paperwork being done by the department?
Col. Stogran: Not solely the paperwork. Actually, there were 10 full-time equivalents afforded to the department in order to stand up what they referred to in the first instance as the veteran services support unit. That was going to be one-stop shopping for us to go to so they would identify whom in the department should be approached to receive documentary information as well as testimonial, if you will.
I soon learned, as I became an ombudsman, if I am to stand before a committee and make statements, I want my investigators dealing with people first person singular. Those 10 positions became redundant and no longer exist. That is part of the $1.3 million, and I am actually engaged in "patriating" those within our organization to work that issue. The rest is for what I would call overhead, the additional workloads that might be taken on within the department. For example, in some cases they do not have the personnel to action all of our requests, so we have developed a system where they will hire contractors to fill in the gap.
Senator Banks: Will the result be that you will be self-contained?
Col. Stogran: No, sir. Unless things change drastically, we are working with a plan where we will look to the department to provide corporate services and HR support.
Senator Kenny: Welcome, Colonel. Good to see you, as always. You are here at our request, but you appear to have a series of problems. Can you describe the solutions that you would like to have and can you describe what you would like this committee to do to assist you?
Col. Stogran: Gosh, that is way above my level of understanding to really recommend what the committee could do to assist us.
Senator Kenny: Tell us what the problems are, then, and we will see where we go.
Col. Stogran: I think I have articulated the problems. The foremost priority in my mind is the provision of information.
Senator Kenny: What solution do you have in mind?
Col. Stogran: I envision direction from government that we are entitled to full access to information within the department. I am bound by the same acts of privacy and security that I dare not compromise. It is a very difficult situation when we have to go on a case-by-case basis for information to get a clear, objective, unbiased assessment of the situation.
Senator Kenny: On the first problem, the committee could be of assistance to you if it recommended that you be provided with more fulsome information as you request.
Col. Stogran: Yes, sir.
Senator Kenny: The second problem?
Col. Stogran: The second problem is the number of people in our organization. We are behind a power curve already. We have pretty well our full complement of the front-end operators, the early intervention analysts, but we continue to get a backlog, and so we are looking for more people in terms of investigators and analysts.
Senator Kenny: What is the stumbling block to you getting more people?
Col. Stogran: It is our budget. We are already balancing a fine line in how much we have invested in our personnel.
Senator Kenny: What additional budget would solve your problem and provide you with enough resources to investigate the complaints and concerns you receive?
Col. Stogran: It is difficult for me to establish exactly what would solve our situation. However, what could happen at the stroke of a pen to alleviate our situation considerably would be 10 full-time equivalents. They were apportioned to the department in direct support of the office and are now positions absorbed in the infrastructure where they are, I dare say, misemployed. They could be moved to our organization to address veterans' issues.
Senator Kenny: The first thing you would like is sufficient funding for 10 more positions?
Col. Stogran: Yes, sir.
Senator Kenny: What is your second request?
Col. Stogran: I have not assessed where we would be at that point in time to give you an accurate figure. I can go away from here and draw up a budget.
Senator Kenny: Can you look at it and forward it to the clerk of the committee, please?
Col. Stogran: Yes, sir.
Senator Kenny: Let us go to the third problem.
Col. Stogran: I am trying to assess which would be my third priority.
Senator Kenny: Pick three or four, we do not mind.
Col. Stogran: Probably my greatest concern following those two are the security of employment for people that work for me. The nature of the ombudsman work is such that you cannot have differences of opinion with people on the other side. I have been known to be somewhat abrasive and aggressive. There have been occasions when my staff has been reminded that they are under the employ of Veterans Affairs Canada.
Senator Kenny: Are you feeling threatened by Veterans Affairs or what causes you to have this concern for the security of your employees?
Col. Stogran: Do you mean job security?
Senator Kenny: Yes.
Col. Stogran: Many of the employees that join Veterans Affairs Canada are dedicated to veterans' causes and would like to stay within Veterans Affairs. Many of my employees are looking over their shoulders and are worried whether they would be accepted back into the organization after having served the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman.
Senator Kenny: Is there any undertaking or agreement from the department that your staff will have a place after they serve with you?
Col. Stogran: One position I have expressed that should be earmarked as an EX-1 position for a rising star within the organization a position I am establishing as the director of strategic liaison and executive support. This position is absolutely crucial to me. That position is my virtual ambassador to the department, someone who knows the department, is personalities and can smooth troubled waters. This also gives the position tremendous insight into the organization. Trying to get that position established as an EX-1 has been problematic.
One thing that comes to mind is a little more selfish as a priority. I feel the deputy minister still has too much control over our organization.
Senator Kenny: Before we go to that, can you please tell us what sort of solution you would like to provide more security for the people working for you? Do you need an undertaking or an agreement? What would give these employees more comfort that they can return to the department and have a useful career?
Col. Stogran: I am ignorant of the capabilities of the committee. Acknowledging the issue as a work-in-progress and as something that would be monitored would be helpful. I remain optimistic that as we find our stride and begin a better working relationship with the department that those concerns will be alleviated.
Senator Kenny: To be clear about the powers of the committee, we have the power to discuss, to investigate, and to examine things. We have the power to make recommendations, to call people before us and to call for papers.
You are giving us proposed recommendations. It does not mean we will adopt them, but we may. There will be a discussion. We cannot push a button and say this is what will happen. We can take up a cause and Senator Meighen has led the committee in many successful causes.
If you do not have a suggestion as to what we might do on job security, you have told us there is a problem. We can think about it and perhaps call other witnesses, if you like. If you have a suggestion, you can either give it to us now or send us a letter afterwards outlining what might provide better security for the individuals that you feel are looking over their shoulder.
Col. Stogran: In that instance, I think our staff will find some degree of reassurance that I have made public that concern on their behalf and that the committee would be seized of their welfare in the future. I think this is a work-in- progress and I am fairly confident that we will be able to mesh with the department.
Senator Kenny: How about your fourth problem?
Col. Stogran: That problem deals with the degree of power that the deputy minister has retained over corporate services in particular. I requested to be delegated with EX staffing authority. That request was refused. With respect to contracts, when we work with departmental staff to have contracts let, after I approve and arrange them with the staff, they must go to the deputy minister for approval.
Having the deputy minister as the senior level of grievance lends the impression to my staff that they are, in fact, answerable to the department. I think that relationship should be downplayed somewhat.
Senator Kenny: How would you have it altered?
Col. Stogran: I would alter it by having the deputy minister delegate some of the accountability to my office.
Senator Kenny: Could you send to us in writing which accountabilities you would like to have delegated?
Col. Stogran: I will.
Senator Kenny: Could we have the fifth problem, please?
Col. Stogran: The fifth problem I am encountering is carving out my turf and determining the relationship I have with the minister in addressing issues. We saw this last week with an initiative I launched into a perceived gap in programs for homeless veterans. This is a level four intervention. It has been done on the side of my desk as I have been touring the country and has erupted into an unpleasant situation expressed in the newspapers. It is manifesting itself as a smear campaign in David Pugliese's latest article in the Ottawa Citizen.
Senator Kenny: What would you have us do?
Col. Stogran: Being seized of the issue, I do not know what can be done.
Senator Kenny: Are there any other issues you would like to bring to our attention or other solutions you would like us to consider?
Col. Stogran: I mentioned the access to information issue first. That is the important issue. The rest can be a work- in-progress, but access to information is absolutely crucial if we want to be unbiased and fair in every instance.
Senator Day: The first point I would like to raise is a little history. The parent committee of this committee has been chastised on more than one occasion for receiving a document in one language only. Senator Comeau brought that to the attention of the Senate as a whole and the Speaker ruled on it.
I just had a document delivered to me in English only. Could I have the French copy of that document?
The Chair: That is coming, I gather. I apologize for that.
Senator Day: No; it is good that we have it. Let the record show that the clerk was able to provide a French copy. I think that is critically important, especially for this committee, when we were chastised for not doing so in the past.
The Chair: Senator Comeau will be pleased to hear that, I am sure.
Senator Day: Perhaps we can let him know on behalf of the Senate.
I know we had a briefing note from our researcher in the Library of Parliament, but has any briefing note from Veterans Affairs been made available to this committee?
The Chair: No.
Senator Day: I can now go to the questioning of the colonel. The ombudsman's legal counsel is here today. Perhaps you can introduce your legal counsel, since you mentioned that she was recently engaged by you.
Col. Stogran: Yes. My legal counsel is Ms. Diane Guilmet-Harris. She comes to us from the Department of Justice and has 20 years of experience. She has a keen interest in HR issues and is ideally suited for this organization.
Senator Day: I think it is important that she be here so that she can hear some of the points that we are making and, perhaps, develop a feeling for what this committee can do to help you. Our interest in the ombudsman position for Veterans Affairs was something that we strongly supported and we want to be helpful to you.
You indicated that your first report has been made available to departmental officials. I guess that is the process you go through; you make it available to them before it becomes public, then it is give to the minister and the minister files it in Parliament and then we finally get to see it. Is that the process?
Col. Stogran: Although we have not followed the entire process through, the intention is that when we complete a report, we pass it on to the department in case there is something that the department might view as reflecting adversely or, perhaps, an error on a point of fact. It comes back to us. We expect that they would address our recommendations also.
If we are not satisfied that the intent of the recommendations are being addressed, as a fallback measure, we would fold in the comments of the department and hand that off to the minister for his review.
Senator Day: You have indicated that the report is about to be forwarded to the minister. You have received one comment to the seven recommendations that were made to the department. Have we heard all of the recommendations, all of the points that are of concern to you that went to the department? Which one did they comment on? What did they have to say?
Col. Stogran: I prefer not to get into that because it is a work-in-progress. It has been suggested that the mark of success of an ombudsman's office is the number of reports presented. In my view, it is more the impact that we can have on the ground. We try to effect that as much as possible within the department. This is not only the first report but also the first time that we bring it to the minister's attention. One of seven recommendations concerning funerals and burials was addressed in the letter, and it concerned communications and the outreach piece of it. As far as the rest of it, I prefer that it take its course, if you do not mind.
Senator Day: I respect your working relationship with the deputy minister and the minister, but could you and your communications people or your legal people who are here ensure that the clerk of our committee receives the information as soon as you are comfortable making it available to us?
We want to know the difference of opinion between you and Veterans Affairs Canada, perhaps in the same way as you have dealt with Senator Kenny on this, but there may be others. We would like to know what they are as soon as that is conveniently possible.
Col. Stogran: Absolutely. As it stands, once we present the report to the minister, we have 60 days after which we can release it publicly. You can expect it in about two month's time.
Senator Day: Presumably, in that time, before you release it publicly, the minister will file it in Parliament. I would assume so. That is the usual practice. I do not have the legislation here, but that is all right.
Col. Stogran: I do not know if you are referring to the annual report, which is, ultimately, to end up in Parliament. This is not the annual report. That is a separate document.
Senator Day: This is separate from the annual report?
Col. Stogran: Yes. The report that we submitted — and, we only received comments on one of our seven recommendations — concerned funerals and burials.
Senator Day: Is that a report that was initiated by you or one that was required statutorily?
Col. Stogran: No, it was initiated by us.
Senator Day: It was the first one that you did?
Col. Stogran: Yes, sir.
Senator Day: We will be interested in hearing about that at the appropriate time.
The Chair: Did Colonel Stogran give us the date of submission of that report? If so, I missed it. What day did you submit his report?
Col. Stogran: It will be tomorrow.
Senator Day: To the minister?
Col. Stogran: It went to the department.
The Chair: When? You said that you have had one answer on the seven recommendations?
Col. Stogran: Yes, sir.
The Chair: When were the people who were supposed to reply to that report to have done so — yesterday or a month ago?
Col. Stogran: No; it was in December. I think we gave them six weeks. There was a fairly lengthy period of time.
The Chair: They have had it since some time in December?
Col. Stogran: Yes. February was when we received the response that came to us.
The Chair: The one response?
Col. Stogran: Yes.
The Chair: Six other responses have not been forthcoming.
Col. Stogran: Six other recommendations were not addressed.
Senator Day: That is helpful. This is a new process for all of us. We are trying to understand your frustrations and see how we may be able to help you.
Did I understand you correctly when you said that at one time you were receiving Question Period briefing notes that were prepared by the department, presumably for whoever a spokesperson is at any particular time in Question Period on behalf of the department?
Col. Stogran: Yes, that was some time ago; I do not have the exact time. I do have a copy of the Question Period briefing note. It was the first time, or shortly thereafter, there was some public interest in the situation to do with homeless veterans. We were on the distribution list for the department's Question Period notes that go to the minister. I saw the briefing note that was going up and I expressed my concerns to the department that in my view it was an embellishment and if those statements were made publicly, they contradicted what I had seen on the ground and we could end up in an embarrassing situation. The action that was taken was that we were taken off the distribution list for Question Period notes.
Senator Day: Thank you for that. I see my time is running out so I will follow the lead of Senator Wallin. I will put my question out and hope that you will answer it when you are answering another Senator.
I am interested in a wounded or disabled Armed Forces personnel before he or she becomes a veteran. I am interested in that transition group. I understand there is a joint committee between Veterans Affairs Canada and the Canadian Forces trying to help those people. We have seen some gaps in that area.
In any of your 400 successes or your 1,700 files, are you working on behalf of any veterans or soon-to-be veterans on issues where they were not getting the service or the information they deserve and they should be getting?
Senator Downe: I am wondering about the substance of the 5,000 inquiries. For example, how many of them are members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police inquiring about whether they qualify for the VIP program? Of the 5,000 out there, how many of them are significant? Is it 1,700?
Col. Stogran: Yes. Those are ones that we action and spend time on.
Senator Downe: You indicated that of the $6.3 million budget, $1.3 million is administered by the department. Has the other $5 million that is under your direct control been spent in the last year?
Col. Stogran: No; we turn back money. Due to the hiring process, we are a little behind.
Senator Downe: I also understand that you had a high staff turnover in your office. Why is that?
Col. Stogran: There are a variety of reasons. First, I have had a significant turn around in my communications staff. Although it has never been expressed to me, my suspicions are that I have a bit of an unorthodox approach to my communications in that I only speak the truth and what I know. There have been concerns with that. We are still understaffed in that area.
In terms of our investigators, we embarked on a process with the Department of National Defence ombudsman, and they are looking for very high-calibre people. It was a lengthy process with exams and such. We have identified three candidates to bring us up to a complement of five. We lost two: One to sick leave and a second one was a lawyer who went on to practice law with the RCMP.
The time lag, once again, has a lot to do with the communications and the inability on our side, in terms of the staff, to really do a lot of the paperwork.
It has been communication.
Senator Downe: My last question is more of an editorial comment with a question at the end. I think you are too critical of the Department of Veterans Affairs because, in your mandate, it indicates the Veteran's Ombudsman is an independent officer reporting directly to the minister. I assume you take your concerns and policy suggestions directly to the minister to implement them as opposed to the department.
However, I am hearing you are going to the department. How often do you meet with the minister?
Col. Stogran: I think I met with the minister on three occasions in the last year. As I said, we have yet to actually get into the more high-level interventions; most of the work we have done has been solved at the staff level. One of the pivotal meetings I had with the minister was a PowerPoint presentation I presented that highlighted some of the things that we discussed here today.
Senator Manning: As a member of the Senate and as a Canadian, I feel distressed to hear we have some of those concerns with our veterans.
In regards to homeless veterans, I believe that one of the senators asked you how many are out there and you mentioned two.
When I read the Ottawa Citizen note a few moments, it said that you had told the Winnipeg Free Press that you had dozens of ex-military personnel who are now homeless, including an 85 year old from the Second World War. It distresses me to think that there is an 85-year-old Second World War veteran out there, homeless.
I am concerned with the process that would be followed up on them. Through this press article, we do not know of any names. Do you have the names of those veterans that are homeless and have those names been brought to the department or someone in government? How do we address someone out there that is homeless? What process is in place, or what process are you trying to put in place?
Col. Stogran: I should clarify that the two that I stated were veterans who asked for our support when we went and spoke to them. The others are homeless people I have met and talked to, who have served in the Canadian Forces.
The Chair: Would that include those who did not want your intervention and/or were satisfied with the support, or lack of support, they were getting from the department?
Col. Stogran: Yes, it would include those who did not ask for intervention. I have met homeless veterans. That is the only observation I can make: We asked them if they need any help. We have actually asked them how Veteran Affairs could improve its services to them.
There is a percentage of our population, I have come to learn, that has a propensity to be homeless; there are some people who prefer to be homeless. Being homeless does not, in itself, constitute a problem, per se.
It has been brought to my attention — and we have passed this on to the department — that the homeless people would benefit by having outreach into the shelters. Some of the veterans have expressed to me a feeling of loss of pride in walking into a Veteran Affairs office and being looked down upon. They feel if they could just engage with the people on their turf, on the street at that level, it would be better. We have had those types of conversations with many veterans.
Senator Manning: I understand. I have run into people who are homeless that do not want to go home. I have run into people that, through no circumstances of their own, end up on social assistance or have lost their pride and go to the office of some government official to seek assistance.
Can you tell us if that homeless 85 year-old Second World War veteran looking for assistance from the government?
Col. Stogran: We are engaged in that — yes, sir. The example that stands out in my mind — that I know for a matter of fact — is one in which the workers within the shelter also asked us to take on that case, so I am confident we are addressing that individual's needs.
I would like to clarify something with the whole homeless issue. I am bringing to the attention of my departmental colleagues that we do not know the situation out there, and I do not have the resources to go around to all of these homeless shelters.
In my opinion, that remains one of the biggest concerns. I know that the United Kingdom, the United States and — now I have found out — Australia have done a study on the streets of the homeless population of veterans. That is my only contention: What is the situation and what are their needs? They differ from the traditional veteran whom we might find in their home.
Senator Manning: I ask today that, if in your work, you do not get satisfaction from dealing with an 85-year-old World War II veteran who is out on the streets; you bring that back to this committee.
Col. Stogran: Absolutely.
Senator Manning: I do not know what our powers are, but there is something seriously wrong. I do not care who is in government. That is a situation. Months should not be spent trying to straighten it out. If it is not straightened out within a very short period of time, it should be a public issue.
Col. Stogran: I have been accused of being insensitive to the needs of veterans, particularly our homeless veterans, and I can tell you I have a passion for it. If I am stone-walled or ignored on this —
Senator Manning: Of all the things we discuss today, that is the one that bothers me the most.
Do you believe your mandate is clear and strong enough? There seems to be some concern. If you have a mandate, everyone should be aware what your mandate is. Yes, you will always run into problems of bureaucracy. We are all used to that. The fact is that a mandate is laid out. Everyone should agree with the mandate and be aware what it is. If the mandate is not being met, there should be an avenue to address those concerns, whether through our committee or otherwise.
If you ask me, there is something wrong with the whole system if you are in your position, with 27 people in your office, spending taxpayers' money — $6.3 million — and are experiencing the level of frustration we are hearing today. I do not have the answer to it but there is something wrong with the system. Our veterans are very important.
Col. Stogran: Regarding the mandate, this returns to one of the issues that I presented to Senator Kenny. One of my priorities is access to information, and one thing impeding our ability or our access to information is the prohibitions within our mandate to certain types of information.
The problem is the definition of "to review." We are prohibited from reviewing such things as court judgments, legal advice, cabinet confidential business, et cetera. From the legal advice I have received, "to review" is much akin, as I said in the legislation, to "hear, determine an act on issues." The department views "to review" as to read, to look at, to be aware of, and prohibits that type of information from coming to us. That would clear the waters in terms of our working relationship.
The Chair: At the beginning of the session, I read out your mandate in French. Do you have any other documents detailing your duties and responsibilities? Do you have a memorandum of understanding?
Col. Stogran: No, sir. Not as yet.
The Chair: The only document you have is your mandate.
Col. Stogran: We did have some memorandums of understanding for corporate services and HR. I tried to have one established for our operational relationships, but it was not very functional.
The Chair: What was not functional, the existing memorandums or the one you tried to establish?
Col. Stogran: Neither. We never did agree on an operational memorandum of understanding and, from the perspective of corporate services, the documents were there, but they did not facilitate the required person-to-person contact. We have been working that issue. Now that I have legal counsel, I intend to take that relationship on as a matter of urgency, whether the solution is in memorandums of understanding, a single memorandum of understanding or perhaps even seeking ministerial direction on issues.
The Chair: To clarify your evidence with respect to the homeless, is it your evidence that the department has no outreach policy towards the homeless and does not visit shelters, or that in your visits you have not come across them in any way?
Col. Stogran: In my visits, I have not come across them.
Senator Wallin: I will ask my question and perhaps you can respond in writing. We have received information from the local district offices have received lists of people that they visited in hospitals. We have received information from the mental health association, hospital support programs et cetera.
I do not want to create undue burden, but if you have a list of the people that you have actually visited, we would be able to compare the lists.
The Chair: Do you mean the people we have visited?
Senator Wallin: We would appreciate seeing the list of people or the offices you have visited. For example, the local offices have met with any number of associations such as the Victoria Cool Aid Society. We could look at your list and compare it to the minister's list and maybe we will see the problem.
To Senator Meighen's point, it is not really that you cannot say the department is not doing its job; it is just that you have not seen evidence of the department doing its job.
Secondly, as a daughter of a veteran, I have to say you scoffed at the notion of offering groundskeeping services to the homeless. On one level, that does seem absurd except that without that program my father would not be living in his own home. To make that choice for the homeless, access and availability of these programs is important. That is just a little personal note.
Col. Stogran: I have to say the Veterans Independence Program is a stroke of genius and groundbreaking. My comment was that the department has classified virtually every program they have as being available to homeless veterans.
Senator Day: Are we able to have access to the information that Senator Wallin has been referring to?
Senator Wallin: I spoke to the minister this morning, and he is testifying here next week.
Senator Day: Can we have that information before we meet. I am interested to learn about the visits to the Cool Aid Society. I do not know what we are talking about, and it makes it difficult to follow the questioning when we do not have the background.
Senator Wallin: I will undertake to see that he puts together a list for us.
Senator Day: That would be helpful.
You are halfway through your mandate. What is your mandate?
Col. Stogran: My mandate terminates on November 11, 2010.
Senator Day: The question I asked earlier, and if you want to provide an answer in writing, I am content, is about that transition period and the related problems. I would like information on the Armed Forces personnel to learn if they know about their rights and the support that is available for them.
Col. Stogran: That is a complex question and I have not had the opportunity to study it in depth. I have some first hand experience, though, and I have friends that are in that transition period. It would take significant resources that we do not have right now to undertake such a study. I could give you information based on my suspicions.
Senator Day: Of the 1,700 files you have opened, none is in relation to that problem.
Col. Stogran: I would have to look at the cases, but no, none to my knowledge, sir.
Senator Day: If it turns out that there are, could you let us know? I am trying to build a file on that subject.
Senator Kenny: We have asked for a number of written answers. Will they be posted on the committee's website and available to the public?
The Chair: I see no reason why not. If they were given to you and you decided to do so, it is perfectly in order.
Senator Kenny: They are going to the clerk. In addition to circulating them to us, will be they be posted and made public?
The Chair: Certainly.
I should have known that a renowned journalist like Senator Wallin would have stolen my thunder, and indeed, she did. I wanted to close the meeting by telling senators that our witnesses next week will be the Deputy Minister and the Minister of Veterans Affairs, so we are getting our teeth right into the problems and challenges of the department. I am looking forward to their visit, and I am sure you are too.
Senator Wallin: I am sorry.
The Chair: You are forgiven. With that, we have to be in the chamber by 1:30, and we have five minutes to get there. This meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)