Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

The Commons: Supporting the troops

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, August 17, 2010 6:34pm - 0 Comments

Colonel Pat Stogran sat in a suit and tie at the front of the National Press Gallery, somewhat hunched over his notes, his hands placed on the table in front of him. Every so often, as he read in precisely the sort of impatient, unapologetic, grinding tone one would expect from a colonel, he would glance up from beneath an impressive brow.

To his immediate left sat a man in a wheelchair, a former member of the Canadian Forces now suffering from ALS. To Col. Stogran’s far right and far left sat men with medals pinned just below the right shoulders of their suit jackets. A half dozen other veterans sat in the gallery.

Col. Stogran explained first what he was not here to talk about—the government’s decision not to renew his term as veterans ombudsman. He has held the title since November 2007 and he will relinquish his post in three months.

“What I am here to do,” he said, “is to expose to Canadians what I perceive as a system that for a long time has denied veterans not just what they deserve, but what they earned with their blood and sacrifice.”

If he is to leave his post, he seems intent on doing so unquietly. Indeed, deviating from his initial statement, he speculated that perhaps he had surprised the government that appointed him. That he had been too outspoken, too aggressive. If so, he seemed unrepentant, perhaps even emboldened.

“It is beyond my comprehension how the system could knowingly deny so many of our veterans the services and benefits that the people and the government of Canada recognized a long, long time ago as being their obligation to provide.”

This was merely the preamble.

Col. Stogran pledged here and now to spend the last three months of his term explaining to Canadians “how badly” veterans and their families are being treated. Then, looking up, he raised his voice and lifted his right hand to chop it at the audience. “To all Canadians, these are your sons and your daughters,” he said. “They’re your brothers and sisters. The time is now to do something about it. Make sure this government understands that this must stop.”

He ceded the microphone then to the men at his sides, each of whom testified to some failure or another of the system—tales of bureaucracy, claims of injustice. The tone was at turns angry and frustrated and demanding and pleading and discomfiting. All of it ultimately coming back, implicitly or explicitly, to the three words that have so often been mouthed these last ten years: support the troops.

The term is by now nearly cliche, tossed off reflexively and lightly like a “god bless” after a sneeze. The Canadian soldier is regularly invoked here to proclaim one’s patriotism, defame one’s opponent, avoid uncomfortable questions, and defend debatable actions. But even if the three-word phrase already seems rendered meaningless by abuse, here it was directly challenged. Here the comforting platitude was met with uncomfortable claims.

When it was his turn, the man to Col. Stogran’s left apologized for his laboured speech, the ALS he suffers from—attributable, he says, to inoculations he received while serving in the first Gulf War—apparently makes it hard to breathe and speak at the same time. “My advice to the ministry is if you’re not willing to stand behind the troops, feel free to stand in front of them,” he said.

And even if this too was a cliche, here it seemed crushing.

Few escaped blame for the neglect, for the care not received and the toll untended. The press was beseeched to ask questions, the public was begged to pay attention, the bureaucrats were blamed, the politicians were told to honour their words. The failure was depicted as massive. “The system” was invoked and lamented again and again and again. The stories were myriad and complicated and the discussion often unwieldy. The point seemed to be this: whatever we say as a country that we feel for our soldiers, we do not demonstrate it when most required.

“We line that Highway of Heroes to respect those who have fallen,” said the man to Col. Stogran’s far right. “Let’s start lining that highway for the veterans that come back that are sitting up.”

“If you detect a bit of frustration up here,” Col. Stogran said. “Welcome to my world.”

Indeed, now the colonel vented too, no longer hunched and steady, but sitting upright and lecturing.

“I could go on for hours,” he said when he finally neared a conclusion.

Reporters’ questions were met with only more lamentations. Eventually, someone asked the colonel if he was disappointed in particular with the Prime Minister. Here, Col. Stogran directed reporters to a Canadian Alliance flyer included in the package of documents handed out before the news conference, which featured, he said, a picture of him in the lower left hand corner. Atop the flyer, beside a picture of Stephen Harper, are two sentences. “When we need you, you are always there. Now it’s our turn to defend you.”

Col. Stogran spoke of himself as “window-dressing” and then proceeded once more to lament for the bureaucracy and the workings of government.

Specific questions need be asked, and specific answers given, about that system. But the fight now would seem to be one of words versus deeds, easy slogans versus uncomfortable realities and the very real business of running a country.

Bookmark and Share
  • http://www.onwardjames.blogspot.com Edmund Onward James

    Prime Minister does not hate the troops and neither does the Conservative government. Ombudsman Pat Strogan was on CBC news and he said that it is the bureaucrats that are the major problem for a pension, even though the broadcaster tried to blame the present government leading to Harper.

    • Blacktop

      That's the point – the bureaucrats who outlive political masters. They know hopw to hold on to their littlke powers because their jobs are well protected. Clean house is what Strogan is saying, not political. The Harper reaction is knee-jerk. Someone spoke out! Can him instead of the bureaucrats.

  • Blacktop

    Don't think so. They are as hard to move off their habits as it is to nail jelly.on the wall . There is always the general message to save money so these guys can hunker down behind their union protection and do the job the way they like until someone specifically orders them to do something different. It woould take a bomb to move a lower level civil servant. Most of the big boys are OIC any way and can be dumped at pleasure. .

  • JamesHalifax

    Phil King wrote:
    "The actions of bureaucrats are directly the result of the messaging and tone set by the minister of the day. Period"

    Sorry, Phil….but you're wrong. I've worked with these beaurocrats.

    The goal of these career beaurocrats is to implement the policies THEY think is the best, while working AROUND the government that may be in power at the time. They're very efficient at it.

    Don't like a policy….just wait it out, throw a wrench in the works, etc..etc…

    It will happen to the next Government as well. It always does.

  • madeyoulook

    I know this won't stop the inevitable partisan nonsense (and, given existing comments, it's obviously way too late for that!), but this is a non-partisan no-brainer. There is not a political party in the House of Commons (even the BQ, I bet), who would disagree that every veteran and family deserve at least whatever benefits government policy currently offers. If the pathetic excuses for MPs of ALL parties could holster their partisan ammo for a few days, there is a window of opportunity for a parliamentary committee to get some useful work done on this file.

    As someone who would vainly self-assess as reasonably aware of Canadian current events, however, this is pretty much the first time this issue appears on the radar. So the media share some blame with me for not caring enough to be informed. Which brings me to the departing ombudsman. How many previous high-profile events of this nature have you put on, sir, during your tenure? Is this some sort of attempt to salvage something from an otherwise ineffectual legacy? If some good comes of it, well, fine, but where have you been?

    • Holly Stick

      Oh look, Stogran last March: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSiJgpwl2KU

      Oh look Stogran in a Walk for ALS: http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Media-Adv…

      Oh look, Stogran meeting with various people including DM and ADMs: http://www.governmentexpenses.ca/drilldown.aspx?m…

      Oh look, Town Hall meetings: http://www.ombudsman-veterans.gc.ca/outreach-sens… [look at it quick before the Government of Harper gets rid of the website]

      • http://dredtory.blogspot.com/ Sir_Francis

        Good hunting, Holly—but a tad supererogatory, really. MYL's point was prima facie absurd, as if the fact that he’d never read news of previous Stogran press conferences were irrefutable evidence of the man's unconscionable sloth.

        MYL must be seething at the Auditor General's disgraceful lassitude, as he's probably not heard much from her over the last few months.

        • Blue

          Francis sounds like a windbag.

          • http://dredtory.blogspot.com/ Sir_Francis

            Oh, Blue. That's so…like…touché.

            Please tell me you're just warming up…

          • Holly Stick

            I treasure comments that include well-turned phrases like "unconscionable sloth" and "disgraceful lassitude".

        • madeyoulook

          it is prima facie absurd to dare to ask why, if it's such a big deal, why is he only making a big deal of it now, so close to his exit?

          Do you need to look up prima facie, or absurd, or both?

          • http://dredtory.blogspot.com/ Sir_Francis

            Have you read the link Holly provided below (nine hours ago) from May 2009, wherein Stogran laments both VA's institutional rot and his felt inability to challenge it effectively? Really, I'm not sure what kind of self-promotion you expected the man to undertake, unless you wanted him to tour with Cirque De Soleil.

            He might also have assumed that he would get another term—like 98% of his co-ombudsmen have gotten—and thus carried himself without quite the sense of urgency with which he now seems beset.

          • madeyoulook

            Your equating "sounding the alarm" and "self-promotion" brings us ever closer to prima facie absurd. But I suspect your attempt at a definition was inadvertent. So my suggestion to learn the definitions stands.

          • http://dredtory.blogspot.com/ Sir_Francis

            Remind me now. Was it you who asked this of Mr. Stogran?

            How many previous high-profile events of this nature have you put on, sir, during your tenure?

            Zounds! I believe it was! And I'm not sure the rest of the planet would feel the need to make the fine distinction between "putting on high-profile events" and "self-promotion" upon which you insist, MYL.

            Getting back to the point, I'm not sure that an ombudsman can be fairly convicted of having done nothing to inform the public of ministerial maladministration simply because some guy who considers himself highly informed has never read about him "putting on high-profile events" and, moreover, fails to find a handful of helpfully provided Google grabs to his exacting taste. The notion that the degree to which an ombudsman keeps Madeyoulook abreast of the progress of his assignment is a reliable measure of his integrity and competence is transparently absurd, indeed.

          • madeyoulook

            Well done: you can cut-and-paste. But perhaps you could trouble yourself to read the entire short paragraph from which you choose to snip a snippet. For in it, you will find: As someone who would vainly self-assess as reasonably aware of Canadian current events, however, this is pretty much the first time this issue appears on the radar. So the media share some blame with me for not caring enough to be informed.

            And if that's too much for you to read at once, maybe you could trouble yourself with just the last sentence.

          • http://dredtory.blogspot.com/ Sir_Francis

            …maybe you could trouble yourself with just the last sentence.

            You mean the sentence which represents 2% worth of honest reality-check snuggled deep inside 98% worth of bad-faith anti-Stogran invective? Yeah. That was a corker. Belated congrats on that.

            Aside from your sullen semi-retraction below, have you anything to add to your assertion that an ombudsman's job is not, as so many of us misguidedly believe, quietly and diligently working on behalf of the clients served by the ministry to which he's been assigned, but, rather, tossing his name and grievances into the media as often and as obstreperously as is necessary to turn your admitted indifference into something approximating casual interest?

          • Crit_Reasoning

            Zounds! I believe it was!

            Prithee, enough of this gadzookery!

          • madeyoulook

            Oops, I submitted before dealing with your second paragraph that also doesn't actually respond to my comment:

            If you are suggesting that an assumption of renewal might have still kept him quiet even longer, then you are calling him a liar ("this press conference is not about my getting sacked") and you are suggesting that he would have remained a docile puppy rather than a watchdog, meaning we would still have no idea who this guy is. So my original question ("where have you been?") still stands.

          • http://dredtory.blogspot.com/ Sir_Francis

            If you are suggesting that an assumption of renewal might have still kept him quiet even longer…or you are suggesting that he would have remained a docile puppy rather than a watchdog.

            I'm guessing that characterising the process by which an ombudsman actually does his job without feeling the need to call a press conference every month as "keeping quiet" and "remaining a docile puppy" is the most ludicrous aspect of your comment, but I grant that there may be something even more laughable hiding within that pile that I've not bothered to look for.

          • http://dredtory.blogspot.com/ Sir_Francis

            …you are calling him a liar…

            Yeah, you wish I were. That would be neat.

            Indeed, Stogran was right. The press conference was obviously not about his getting sacked: his sacking was not the theme of the event, and he did not once complain about getting fired. The press conference may well have been prompted by his sacking, however, and the knowledge that his successor will need the assistance of public outrage to help him (or her) get things done at VA. If you think Stogran deserves crucifixion for that, fine—but please try to read comments arguing the contrary with an attention at least slightly more engaged than that which an ADD-burdened nine-year-old devotes to a Bazooka Joe comic.

          • madeyoulook

            If you think Stogran deserves crucifixion for that, fine Uh, no, as a barely practicing agnostic, I am not the fan of crucifixion that others might be. I have been defending "where have you been?" against a scurrilous charge of prima facie absurdity.

            But the rest of your, um, prose comes pretty close to my original phrase: Is this some sort of attempt to salvage something from an otherwise ineffectual legacy? Glad to see you're finally coming 'round.

            Anyways, after some more digging (thanks Holly for the initial effort) I have unearthed some evidence to cut the guy some slack. See a bit below where I attempt to answer my own question.

      • madeyoulook

        Holly, may I suggest you not give up your career of, well, of whatever, to move into PR.

        Your first link, a radio interview in Toronto about "what my job is" and praising Veterans Affairs for trying to work hard to address issues he brings up.

        Your second: a press announcement that the man is in a charity walk.

        Your third: I don't know what you got, but your link brings me to "No Travel Expenses" and "No Hospitality Expenses."

        Your fourth: Well, good, the man is holding town halls. That's a great way to bring his mandate to interested parties and to solicit feedback and complaints, but not a way to get the national media's attention.

        All very nice, but not a single link answers my question about "where have you been" on this apparent crisis that, so close to the end of his tenure, suddenly becomes high-profile.

    • madeyoulook

      I suppose the best answer to my "where have you been" charge is that the guy was hired in 2007, and the first and only annual report mentions 2008-9 without detailing much useful information (they contacted or visited a bunch of homeless shelters to see if there were many homeless veteran Canadians — the shelters are listed, but is there a number given? Nope).

      So the guy's pretty new at this. But even in that annual report things seem way more positive than he seems to be letting on now.

      • Holly Stick

        Part of his job would be listening to veterans at the town halls and elsewhere, for example:
        http://www.ombudsman-veterans.gc.ca/outreach-sens…

        But he was hired in November 2007 and

        "…Since that time the Office has been working to establish itself as an organization with the necessary infrastructure and people to allow it to fulfil its mandate. Going into fiscal year 2009/10 the Office is finally in a situation where an organization exists, with classified positions that are mostly filled with people on an indeterminate basis…"
        http://www.ombudsman-veterans.gc.ca/reports-rappo…

        • Holly Stick

          Here's a 2009 blog article about what his office was doing and the constraints they were under:

          "…Stogran’s only power is to embarrass the government in the news media and when he does….well look at Greg Thompson’s attack on him in the Winnipeg Free Press.

          At the same time VAC controls the hiring of Stogran’s staff (not who is selected as you point out in your article but how and when they are hired). So it has taken 18 months to hire 27 people!!! Someone should be asking VAC why it took so long to hire these people…"
          http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs…

          • Holly Stick

            That's part of a comment that was sent to the blogger.

            I notice that veterans do tend to blame the bureaucracy for problems, and I don't know how much that is justified, in most cases or only a few.

    • madeyoulook

      A little more background info on our soon-to-be-departing ombudsman:
      http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/so…

      Final graf: For the next three months until his contact expires on the eve of, ironically, Remembrance Day, Pat Stogran has vowed to be one old soldier who has no intention of fading away.

      OK, then. It's just a shame he's finally doing his job over the last three months of it.

  • Holly Stick

    Hey, remember that little "non-issue" with the census and StatsCan? Apparently Veterans Affairs did a survey to 'find out' that veterans were happy with the (inadequate) lump-sum payments. Funny they didn't get StatsCanad to do the survey…

    "…The real choice unanimously and loudly voiced by the Royal Canadian Legion, the Veterans Ombudsman, opposition parties and every independent expert witness who testified to Parliament: Would veterans prefer the lump sum which pays a maximum of $276,000 or a lifelong monthly tax free disability pension of approximately $29,000 per year plus amounts for spouses and children and fully indexed to public service salaries?…"
    http://fairwhistleblower.ca/content/disabled-vete…

  • madeyoulook

    At least he gave himself a failing grade a year ago. But if he was, as a quoted commenter suggests, set up to fail, a self-respecting manager would raise a bigger stink, or resign while raising a noisy public stink. He's making noises now, way too late in his own game.

From Macleans