# Investigator in Stogran's office on deck as new veterans ombudsman



## 57Chevy (5 Nov 2010)

Guy Parent, a retired chief warrant officer in the Canadian Forces, is expected to be named as the new veterans ombudsman by the Conservative government, the Ottawa Citizen has been told.

The announcement could come as early as Friday.

Government sources say Parent will replace Pat Stogran, the high-profile retired colonel who upset the Harper government with his blunt comments about how poorly veterans were being treated.

Veterans Affairs Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn's office would not comment Thursday night about Parent.
Stogran was informed in August that the government would not be renewing his contract.

Parent is a former chief warrant officer with the Canadian Forces and served as Stogran's director of investigations. He had previously been with the Department of National Defence/Canadian Forces Ombudsman. While at that office, Parent took part in a number of investigations, including an examination of the treatment of military personnel with post-traumatic stress disorders.

Parent served in the military for more than three decades and had been a search-and-rescue technician.

He comes into the ombudsman's job as Veterans Affairs finds itself under fire for how it has been handling benefits for former military personnel.

On Saturday, veterans across the country will be marching outside MPs' constituency offices and on Parliament Hill to complain about how the government has been treating them.

There is also anger over the New Veterans Charter, developed under the Liberals and brought in by the Conservatives, to govern benefits for a new generation of veterans. Veterans have complained the charter shortchanges them on benefits.

Veterans Affairs bureaucrats have also been accused of violating the privacy of veterans by inappropriately sharing their personal information. In other cases, veterans' families have come forward to complain about how insensitive federal bureaucrats have been in handling benefits and providing services.

Stogran had re-applied for the job of ombudsman, but the government did not acknowledge receipt of his resume.

"I deeply regret not having been considered for another term, and am most disappointed that my CV was not even worthy of an acknowledgment of receipt from PCO; neither the hard copy, the fax nor the electronic version," Stogran wrote in an email Wednesday sent to Wayne Wouters, the Clerk of the Privy Council Office.

Stogran made headlines earlier this year when he warned that stingy federal bureaucrats, including those at the Privy Council Office and Treasury Board, were blocking initiatives that could help the country's Afghan war veterans.

He said the motive appeared to be aimed at saving money and Stogran complained that senior federal officials blocking the initiatives were making on average more in one year than a soldier who had his legs blown off in Afghanistan would receive in his lifetime.

Since receiving notice in August that his services were no longer required, Stogran has conducted a high-profile campaign in the news media and before parliamentary committees to raise awareness about the plight of veterans.

The government responded by announcing changes to the charter and promising to provide more funding for injured veterans in the future.

Blackburn said the government is committed to supporting those who have served the country.
article link
                          (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Nov 2010)

So if they were trying to get rid of Stogran so bad, why hire his right hand man? Guy Parent may not be as direct to the media in the last few months as Stogran has, but he's sure as heck going to have a lot of the same opinions, especially with everything he's learned as the investigator.


----------



## Greymatters (5 Nov 2010)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> Blackburn said the government is committed to supporting those who have served the country.



You think?  Sounds like he's got the government lines memorized already...


----------



## Wookilar (5 Nov 2010)

Surprised?

You should have heard the lines they were trying to feed us last night in the Base theater.
Would have been nice to have someone from the Ombudsman's office there along with CMP.

Wook


----------



## Gunner98 (5 Nov 2010)

I wonder if his tone has changed?

SCONDVA Publications - June 4, 1998 - CF CWO

"CWO Guy Parent: In fact, I represent 47,000 non-commissioned members of the armed forces, and I am the principal adviser to General Baril. I work through a communication network of chief warrant officers at different levels with the commanders here and at the very lowest level of small organizations. I certainly can confirm that the leadership of today, including General Baril, enjoys the support of the majority of the Canadian Forces personnel, certainly the non-commissioned members. 

Obviously there are always some people who will not be happy with situations. That happens in every organization. But certainly there's no indication whatsoever that the leadership of today is in question at all from the non-commissioned members....

CWO Guy Parent: I find out every day. Last year I must have touched base with probably 20,000 people during my visits. I'm constantly on the road. 

As I say, my principal function is to advise the leadership, just as it is the responsibility of my colleagues in my network team. We are constantly on the road investigating morale, talking about policies, talking about leadership, training people, informing people.  That's our bread and butter. 

There are always some people who will not be happy with changes and that type of thing, but it's not generally the case. We have full confidence in today's leaders."


----------



## 57Chevy (5 Nov 2010)

The issue seems simple and clear enough.
Nothing against XChief Parent but veterans want the Colonel


----------



## MJP (5 Nov 2010)

I fully support the issues that Pat Strogan brought up but quite frankly he did not bring up any serious issues until near the end of his term.  Too me it was just as much about protecting his job as it was to get the message out.  That just muddies the water and is a disservice to veterans.  I can only hope that the Mr. Parent doesn't stay quiet but continues to push the very same issues and concerns of veterans* throughout* his tenure.


----------



## the 48th regulator (5 Nov 2010)

MJP said:
			
		

> I fully support the issues that Pat Strogan brought up but quite frankly he did not bring up any serious issues until near the end of his term.  Too me it was just as much about protecting his job as it was to get the message out.  That just muddies the water and is a disservice to veterans.  I can only hope that the Mr. Parent doesn't stay quiet but continues to push the very same issues and concerns of veterans* throughout* his tenure.




Bingo,

Sorry 57Chevy, I am one Vet that does not see your view.  I agree with MJP.  His concerns was for self preservation.  Why did we not hear of him three years ago??  No press conferences then.

He gets whacked all of a sudden it is "You should see what is happening to the vets...."

dileas

tess


----------



## Brasidas (5 Nov 2010)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Bingo,
> 
> Sorry 57Chevy, I am one Vet that does not see your view.  I agree with MJP.  His concerns was for self preservation.  Why did we not hear of him three years ago??  No press conferences then.
> 
> ...



Maybe he was attempting to get problems addressed by quietly identifying them and pushing for change without embarrassing anyone? Getting notice of termination changes things.


----------



## the 48th regulator (5 Nov 2010)

Brasidas said:
			
		

> Maybe he was attempting to get problems addressed by quietly identifying them and pushing for change without embarrassing anyone? Getting notice of termination changes things.




Ah yes,

Then after he discovered he was no longer in line for the Job, that angle went out the window....

Pfft.  You proved my point.

dileas

tess


----------



## 57Chevy (5 Nov 2010)

Well I must say that it is a good point MJP & 48th. ;D
As a matter of fact the only time I ever heard of him was when the crap hit the fan, 
which so happened to be just toward the end of his term.(hehehe)
But he did not walk away from the truth without first making things known.
It is much better going out the door screaming with hands full 
than it is screaming empty handed when first coming in the door. 

That is to say that there was alot to hear and consider prior to taking any necessary action.
And I find his actions to be adequate.
But that is my opinion.


----------



## OldSolduer (5 Nov 2010)

For what its worth, I think, IMO we should give the new VAC Ombudsman a chance.


----------



## Brasidas (5 Nov 2010)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Ah yes,
> 
> Then after he discovered he was no longer in line for the Job, that angle went out the window....
> 
> ...



For all I know, he was incompetent yes man who only made noise after he lost his paycheck. I don't know a damn thing about what he said or what he did quietly.

I don't see how I made your point at all, though. A person who identifies and handles complaints loudly, without offering those people a chance to make changes without being embarrassed, might not be the best at his job. If he does publicly embarrass such people after they are given an opportunity to address the problems and fail to do so adequately, embarrassment may be an effective tactic to get the job done.

I don't see a failure on Stogran's part here. His timing and his behaviour do not suggest to me that he failed to act prior to his dismissal.


----------



## Sprinting Thistle (5 Nov 2010)

In Ottawa, its command by committee and leadership by consensus.  Those who rock the boat or create friction find doors closed to them.  I suspect Col S worked within the system as much as he could but when he found the door waiting for him at the end, he decided to vocalize his concerns.   For what its worth.


----------



## 57Chevy (5 Nov 2010)

Latest news places Chief Parent in the seat starting Nov 11.
Congratulations  :yellow:


OTTAWA — Promising their concerns will remain on the government's radar, Canada's new veterans ombudsman on Friday said they deserve benefits that meet their needs.

Guy Parent, a retired Canadian Forces chief warrant officer with nearly four decades of experience, is the new watchdog. He replaces retired colonel Pat Stogran, Veteran Affairs Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn announced Friday.
Parent will begin a five-year term on Nov. 11.

"Many issues have surfaced in the last few months and veterans' concerns have been identified and floated to the surface . . . my team's responsibility will be to keep these issues buoyant. By more in-depth research aimed at finding facts, we should be able to make more specific recommendations to the department and the minister," Parent said, following Blackburn's announcement.

"I firmly believe our veterans . . . deserve to be treated with dignity and respect and that when they suffer an injury while serving their country, their country should respond with providing them benefits that meet their needs with the minimum amount of bureaucracy, with fairness and expedience. I accept the challenge of the position, conscious of the fact that it will not be easy but it will be very rewarding," he said.

Parent served as director of investigations to Stogran, who was told in August that his appointment would not be renewed.
Stogran spent the last few months of his three-year term criticizing the government and alleging it had turned its back on veterans by replacing pension payments with a lump-sum compensation of $276,000 for injured soldiers.

Wednesday, at a Senate subcommittee meeting on veterans affairs, Stogran described his discussions with veterans about the issues they face as "demoralizing."

"The concerns are huge and they are demanding and toward the end of my term, I actually found my interaction with veterans in town halls to be very demoralizing because I was hearing the same things over and over again and all I would get parroted back to me from the department were media lines and backgrounders," Stogran said.

He said he was naive at first and should have been "much more aggressive much earlier on."

"In retrospect, I wouldn't have been so trusting of the system. I sincerely believed the rhetoric of this commitment to veterans and that we were all in it for the veterans," he said, offering advice to his successor.

"It's not our job to be making recommendations. There's a lot of high-priced help right now that's engaged in sorting that piece of it out. It's our job to make sure that we are proactive and, if necessary, challenge the elected officials of the day to follow through . . . my successor should rise up to the challenge," he said.

Parent said he won't immediately celebrate new funding, including a $52.5-million investment, launched by the Veterans Affairs Department. He said the department "did not age well" and that it wants to help clients but is often limited by bureaucratic processes, he said.

"While any new benefits is a good thing for veterans, we'll look at these changes with conservative optimism until we determine the real impact it will have on veterans and their families," he said.

Before retiring from the Forces in 2001, Parent served as a search-and-rescue officer and as chief warrant officer, which is the highest appointment for a non-commissioned member. He went on to work in the offices of the Defence Department and the Canadian Forces Ombudsman.

He said his near decade of previous experience in these institutions will be a "considerable advantage."

Veterans are expected to protest Saturday morning in front of MPs offices and on Parliament Hill against recent changes made to soldiers' injury compensation and pension plans and to rally support for Stogran.

Protests will be held outside MPs' offices in Victoria, Edmonton, Calgary, Toronto, Trenton, Ont., Montreal, Halifax, St. John's, and Fredericton.
article link
                         (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## jollyjacktar (5 Nov 2010)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> For what its worth, I think, IMO we should give the new VAC Ombudsman a chance.



Yes, I agree.  See what he is going to be about.  There will be plenty of time to bitch or applaud over the next three years.  I do hope that he remembers his roots and will not be or become a "yes" man.  Especially as it is being reported today that it seems to be business as usual at Veterans Affairs and the New  Screw Veterans Charter is the order of the day.


----------



## the 48th regulator (5 Nov 2010)

Brasidas said:
			
		

> For all I know, he was incompetent yes man who only made noise after he lost his paycheck. I don't know a damn thing about what he said or what he did quietly.
> 
> I don't see how I made your point at all, though. A person who identifies and handles complaints loudly, without offering those people a chance to make changes without being embarrassed, might not be the best at his job. If he does publicly embarrass such people after they are given an opportunity to address the problems and fail to do so adequately, embarrassment may be an effective tactic to get the job done.
> 
> I don't see a failure on Stogran's part here. His timing and his behaviour do not suggest to me that he failed to act prior to his dismissal.



Sure, okay.....

dileas

tess


----------



## Bin-Rat (6 Nov 2010)

Good-day..

To start it's reported that the NEW Ombudsman term is actually 5 year term..

As per why Col Stogran only recently spoke out,  as stated in Questions from the Standing committee Of Veterans Affairs
 ACVA Meeting Notes

And here is a Cut and paste from the parts I had found in reference as to why he wasn't extremely out spoken 
You can find the response at time index (1650) and the 2nd one (1620) about 4 paragraphs further down.

Quote
Col Patrick Stogran:
    Mr. Chairman, I'd say categorically not. In fact, in the deputy minister's policy statement regarding the sharing of information with the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman, she clearly states that she will determine what information she will release to me so as not to constrain my ability to comment publicly. Fundamentally, that's controlling the message.

     I don't know if the committee will remember, but initially I was very optimistic about my mandate in the order in council I was given, for two reasons. First, every member of the department and the Veterans Review and Appeal Board expressed to me their complete loyalty and dedication to veterans. Second, I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone couldn't have that kind of commitment to our veterans.

     I found halfway through my third and final year, particularly among central agencies and senior management within the department, that the commitment was a thin veneer. I'd be the first to say that the order in council, that optimism, is now completely gone. In the absence of a legislated mandate, this could happen all over again. 

Another reply from a question on this meeting was this..

Col Patrick Stogran:
     Mr. Chairman, suffice it to say that in the early days of my tenure as Veterans Ombudsman, I encountered several members who shall remain nameless, several senior members of both the board and the department, who expressed to me that they have an obligation as public servants to preserve the public purse. I didn't hear that once or twice; I heard that numerous times from policy writers through to.... I'll just leave it at that.

    I have to fall back on the benefit of the doubt. I know that my staff has been hearing about this for at least two years now. Not only were the interpretations wrong, but when we submitted observations to the department, we received letters back from the department, from the minister, basically just describing the process as it exists. Our aim in providing our observations to the department was to try to engage in a discussion to break down this legalistic balance of probabilities approach to treating our veterans.

     So it's an accumulation of many of those kinds of encounters. I think the penny really dropped for me at one point. Well, I'll say at a couple of points. I was once told that it was Treasury Board that they can't get past. The conversation went on to the effect that there was a time when the department could go to Treasury Board and they would do anything for the veterans. Those days are gone. In one particular instance—this was the turning point at two and a half years where I said, “I'm not going to be able to break this culture”—I was talking with a deputy minister regarding the treatment of widows, and I basically said, “The department is cheating widows of World War II.” The response I got is that the department cannot go to Treasury Board to ask for more money for programs.

     To me, if the deputy minister is not prepared to let these kinds of issues leave the department and in fact argue on behalf of our veterans, I dare say then it's clear that the senior bureaucrats are in that position for one reason, and one reason only, and I would say that's to enforce the rules that have the culture the way it is today.


----------



## Greymatters (8 Nov 2010)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> I wonder if his tone has changed?
> 
> SCONDVA Publications - June 4, 1998 - CF CWO
> 
> ...



I really dont have anything positive to say about that - if you were in the CF during that time period you'd know this is just a puff piece article...


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Nov 2010)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Bingo,
> 
> Sorry 57Chevy, I am one Vet that does not see your view.  I agree with MJP.  His concerns was for self preservation.  Why did we not hear of him three years ago??  No press conferences then.
> 
> ...



Agreed.


----------



## the 48th regulator (12 Nov 2010)

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Politics/20101111/parent-ombudsman-101111/


*New vets ombud begins job on Remembrance Day*

CTV.ca News Staff

Date: Thu. Nov. 11 2010 11:58 AM ET

Canada's new veterans' ombudsman says he will return to a more traditional definition of the role, after his predecessor drifted into "advocate" territory. 

Retired chief warrant officer Guy Parent begins his new job today, replacing retired colonel Pat Stogran. 

Parent, the former head of investigations for the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman, told CTV's Canada AM he will not be afraid to stand up against the government when necessary. But he will come armed with facts and recommendations. 

In the last few months of his term, Parent's predecessor became a vocal critic of the government, claiming Ottawa had turned its back on Canada's vets. 

"I think Mr. Stogran in the last few months has gone away from the traditional ombuds role to become more of an advocate, which will be of very great value to us now for the future," Parent said. 

"But we need to go back now to an approach that is actually constructive and based on facts so we can approach the department and make recommendations that will accomplish something in the end." 

One of Stogran's key points of contention with the government was the decision to replace pension payments for injured soldiers with a lump sum payout of $276,000. But he also focused on the lack of recognition and treatment for post traumatic stress disorder and the contentious New Veterans Charter. 

Parent said he will continue to tackle those key issues and fulfill the mandate of acting as an intermediary between veterans and the government and agencies available to assist them. 

"I think the big priority right now is that all these issues that have surfaced in the media in the last few months be made buoyant, to really reconcile and get back to an ombudsman role to actually make sure we take these issues and study them, review them and put some specific recommendations on the table for the department," Parent said. 

While Stogran's term ended after three years, the ombudsman's term has now been extended to five years. 

Parent said the longer term has advantages in terms of strategic planning and accomplishing goals. But he said it will also allow him to achieve a personal goal of completing 50 years of service to Canada. 

He said he intends to put his own stamp on the job but said veterans will always be his top priority. 

"I think every organization head has the right to have its own style and my personality, my style won't change just because I'm the ombudsman for veterans," Parent said. 

"I believe in the veterans, I believe Canada owes a debt to the veterans and I'm going to ensure it gets repaid at full value." 

_© 2010 CTV All rights reserved_


----------

