Col. Pat Stogran, CAN's New Vets Ombudsman
- Thread starter The Bread Guy
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 4,118
- Points
- 1,260
Patience, Grasshopper - I don't think this will be the last we'll hear of this ;DNemo888 said:
Now that the "sizzle" is prominently out there, I hope the next phase involves some "steak", i.e., what specifically needs to be done/changed.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Enter Devil's Advocate based on comments from friends and coworkers:
1. Most posts such as these are 2-3 years. Sogran is not being fired. His contract is just not being renewed. The government hasn't helped matters and speculation though by not having a replacement named already.
2. Comments against the government by the ombudsman have only really come to light since the announcement of his contract not being renewed.
3. All of this will end up overshadowing what the veterans themselves are trying to say -- one-time payments are not the right solution.
Just adding some other view points out there.
1. Most posts such as these are 2-3 years. Sogran is not being fired. His contract is just not being renewed. The government hasn't helped matters and speculation though by not having a replacement named already.
2. Comments against the government by the ombudsman have only really come to light since the announcement of his contract not being renewed.
3. All of this will end up overshadowing what the veterans themselves are trying to say -- one-time payments are not the right solution.
Just adding some other view points out there.
- Reaction score
- 1,672
- Points
- 1,090
a78jumper said:
That may be the most significant point, lost in the furor.
I agree that the time is probably right for a replacement. In the context that the Ombudsman can not risk becoming part of the bureaucracy by staying on too long.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
Don Martin and a bit of attacking the messenger rather than the message.
Don Martin: Veterans advocate goes down fighting
August 17, 2010 – 7:48 pm
Nobody ever wins a fight picked against Pat Stogran.
When the Harper government decided the crusty retired colonel wasn’t worthy of reappointment as Canada’s first veterans ombudsman, they knew his response would be a carpet bombing.
The former commander of Canadian forces in Afghanistan delivered as expected yesterday, armed with an open microphone, before an assembled media horde.
It was a slightly queasy military tactic.
Mr. Stogran, a retired colonel, assembled a heartstrings-tugging entourage of physically disabled, mentally handicapped and disease-plagued veterans from Canadian missions going back decades. He then co-ordinated their attack based on the common view that fighting this government and the courts was more frustrating and painful than facing their actual combat enemies.
The veterans gave every appearance of being props in Stogran’s personal war.
No, no, no, he insisted several times. This was not about him. It was about the thousands of victims tangled up in a military bureaucracy that foot-drags, stonewalls and obstructs on ways to ease the plight of injured veterans and their families.
Perhaps, but only five days separates the retired colonel’s pink slip and his blast of condemnation over the slow pace of progress on issues that have been gathering political and legal dust for years. The only newsworthy development on this file? Pat Stogran is not getting his contract renewed for another three years.
OK, the record clearly shows Mr. Stogran is a classic by-the-book warrior. He defends soldiers above all other considerations. He understands their gripes and grievances, having seen them up close in battlefield and recuperative scenarios. He gave a loud, clear voice to those whose stories should be told and retold to make sure Canadians don’t shrug off their sacrifice as two minutes of silent reflection one day per year.
Nobody can argue these veterans don’t deserve fair compensation, decent benefits, lifelong care for their injuries and to have it all provided without the disrespectful hassle of being dragged into money-sucking court showdowns after exhausting all appeals to a deaf military complex.
But while replacing squeaky wheels is standard operating procedure for this government, some military brass go so far as to suggest Mr. Stogran may actually be more of a problem than a solution to the many grievances of injured veterans.
He is legendary within the ranks for being excessively antagonistic. He’s “all vinegar, no honey,” a senior source told me.
Mr. Stogran was known to blitz senior bureaucrats with vitriolic emails when he perceived that his positions were being ignored, delayed or rejected. As a result, they did not feel inclined to do him any favours by expediting his files, a source confided.
Of course, the optics of facing a colonel’s uprising are uncomfortable for a government that is proud of standing by the troops and bolstering their defences with new equipment.
They may yet regret the day they took a tough guy who declares “fight is my middle name” to find a more pliable candidate with a diplomatic touch.
This is, after all, the beginning and not the end of Mr. Stogran’s military offensive.
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.
National Post
dmartin@nationalpost
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/08/17/don-martin-veterans-advocate-goes-down-fighting/
Don Martin: Veterans advocate goes down fighting
August 17, 2010 – 7:48 pm
Nobody ever wins a fight picked against Pat Stogran.
When the Harper government decided the crusty retired colonel wasn’t worthy of reappointment as Canada’s first veterans ombudsman, they knew his response would be a carpet bombing.
The former commander of Canadian forces in Afghanistan delivered as expected yesterday, armed with an open microphone, before an assembled media horde.
It was a slightly queasy military tactic.
Mr. Stogran, a retired colonel, assembled a heartstrings-tugging entourage of physically disabled, mentally handicapped and disease-plagued veterans from Canadian missions going back decades. He then co-ordinated their attack based on the common view that fighting this government and the courts was more frustrating and painful than facing their actual combat enemies.
The veterans gave every appearance of being props in Stogran’s personal war.
No, no, no, he insisted several times. This was not about him. It was about the thousands of victims tangled up in a military bureaucracy that foot-drags, stonewalls and obstructs on ways to ease the plight of injured veterans and their families.
Perhaps, but only five days separates the retired colonel’s pink slip and his blast of condemnation over the slow pace of progress on issues that have been gathering political and legal dust for years. The only newsworthy development on this file? Pat Stogran is not getting his contract renewed for another three years.
OK, the record clearly shows Mr. Stogran is a classic by-the-book warrior. He defends soldiers above all other considerations. He understands their gripes and grievances, having seen them up close in battlefield and recuperative scenarios. He gave a loud, clear voice to those whose stories should be told and retold to make sure Canadians don’t shrug off their sacrifice as two minutes of silent reflection one day per year.
Nobody can argue these veterans don’t deserve fair compensation, decent benefits, lifelong care for their injuries and to have it all provided without the disrespectful hassle of being dragged into money-sucking court showdowns after exhausting all appeals to a deaf military complex.
But while replacing squeaky wheels is standard operating procedure for this government, some military brass go so far as to suggest Mr. Stogran may actually be more of a problem than a solution to the many grievances of injured veterans.
He is legendary within the ranks for being excessively antagonistic. He’s “all vinegar, no honey,” a senior source told me.
Mr. Stogran was known to blitz senior bureaucrats with vitriolic emails when he perceived that his positions were being ignored, delayed or rejected. As a result, they did not feel inclined to do him any favours by expediting his files, a source confided.
Of course, the optics of facing a colonel’s uprising are uncomfortable for a government that is proud of standing by the troops and bolstering their defences with new equipment.
They may yet regret the day they took a tough guy who declares “fight is my middle name” to find a more pliable candidate with a diplomatic touch.
This is, after all, the beginning and not the end of Mr. Stogran’s military offensive.
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.
National Post
dmartin@nationalpost
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/08/17/don-martin-veterans-advocate-goes-down-fighting/
- Reaction score
- 4,118
- Points
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
I think it would be a lot more compelling if he could spell out exactly which practices and policies he is referring to.
I don't even support the assertion from our Stakeholders that civilian employees should be changed with Vets. I know people in the OVO would say there is a definite advantage of having Veterans around, but I would argue that Veterans are experts at following orders.
And I dont get the context of this (above) - are stakeholders suggesting that Vets be hired to replace civilians? And he seems to be saying that Vets are not an advantage because they are experts at following orders...? Whats that supposed to imply?
Perhaps its makes more sense to someone who has more knowledge of the inside issues...
I don't even support the assertion from our Stakeholders that civilian employees should be changed with Vets. I know people in the OVO would say there is a definite advantage of having Veterans around, but I would argue that Veterans are experts at following orders.
And I dont get the context of this (above) - are stakeholders suggesting that Vets be hired to replace civilians? And he seems to be saying that Vets are not an advantage because they are experts at following orders...? Whats that supposed to imply?
Perhaps its makes more sense to someone who has more knowledge of the inside issues...
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
This just in from the TO Star.
Top soldier backs ombudsman on wounded vets
August 20, 2010, 1600 hrs
Allan Woods
OTTAWA – Canada’s top soldier says complaints about the poor treatment of wounded veterans are bang on.
Veterans’ Ombudsman Pat Stogran, a retired infantry officer, went on the attack earlier this week against government officials and bureaucrats he says are letting down those who have sacrificed their lives and limbs for the country.
He was flanked by veterans from as far back as the Vietnam War and as recent as the Afghan conflict who say they’ve been ignored, been short-changed or faced hostility in their fight for compensation from Canada.
Now one more soldier with a chest full of medals and the power to influence policy is lining up beside Stogran, whose term as ombudsman ends in November.
“He has certainly voiced with clarity what the issues are,” said Gen. Walter Natynczyk, the chief of defence staff. “The issues are absolutely correct issues.”
One of the issues that most irks those wounded in the Afghan war is the government’s decision in 2006 to stop awarding monthly lifetime disability payments and to instead offer a lump-sum payment of up to $276,079 for injuries.
Disgruntled vets say the amount is much less than they would receive under the old rules and delivering it all at once makes it difficult to stretch the sum for more than a few years.
Veterans Affairs Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn said this week that a survey of veterans found 69 per cent liked the lump sum payment, but that he was concerned that three out of every 10 soldiers were not satisfied. His department is looking at other options such as delivering the money in several installments.
Natynczyk, who has taken care in his term to highlight the cohort of wounded soldiers coming out of Afghanistan, said his “starting position” in the debate is that “we can’t do enough for our wounded soldiers.”
“We can’t do enough in terms of their recovery, in terms of their rehabilitation, in terms of ensuring they have all the wherewithal to gain their independence again, especially those soldiers who have suffered amputation.”
And he acknowledged that the lump-sum payment “doesn’t work for everybody.”
Prime Minister Stephen Harper said himself in Prince Edward Island Friday that there will be some necessary adjustments as soldiers from World War II die and the government focuses its attention on helping Afghan war vets.
“Those who have been injured in Afghanistan will become our increasing priority and that will demand some adjustment on how we run veterans programmes and is subject to a comprehensive view,” he said.
The Liberal party’s veteran’s critic, Rob Oliphant, said what’s needed is a mixed system that can provide a lump sum payment when appropriate and provide a safety net to soldiers in the form of phased pay-outs when that is the best option.
“This one size doesn’t fit all,” he said.
Oliphant is also trying to recall the House of Commons Veteran’s Affairs committee to urge the government to give Stogran a second term, particularly now that Natynczyk has come out in support of his criticisms.
That could take some time, as could the changes that the ombudsman would ultimately like to see happening. Stogran wrote on his official website Friday that if Canadians are truly upset about the way veterans are being treated, they need to exert influence on federal politicians.
“Because much of what is needed to be done is rooted in legislation, only Canada’s Members of Parliament and Senators can make those changes. The only way substantive change is going to occur is if Canada’s parliamentarians realize that this issue is a significant and urgent issue for Canadians,” he wrote, noting that veterans make up 3 per cent of the voting population, a figure that rises to 10 per cent when immediate family is factored in.
Top soldier backs ombudsman on wounded vets
August 20, 2010, 1600 hrs
Allan Woods
OTTAWA – Canada’s top soldier says complaints about the poor treatment of wounded veterans are bang on.
Veterans’ Ombudsman Pat Stogran, a retired infantry officer, went on the attack earlier this week against government officials and bureaucrats he says are letting down those who have sacrificed their lives and limbs for the country.
He was flanked by veterans from as far back as the Vietnam War and as recent as the Afghan conflict who say they’ve been ignored, been short-changed or faced hostility in their fight for compensation from Canada.
Now one more soldier with a chest full of medals and the power to influence policy is lining up beside Stogran, whose term as ombudsman ends in November.
“He has certainly voiced with clarity what the issues are,” said Gen. Walter Natynczyk, the chief of defence staff. “The issues are absolutely correct issues.”
One of the issues that most irks those wounded in the Afghan war is the government’s decision in 2006 to stop awarding monthly lifetime disability payments and to instead offer a lump-sum payment of up to $276,079 for injuries.
Disgruntled vets say the amount is much less than they would receive under the old rules and delivering it all at once makes it difficult to stretch the sum for more than a few years.
Veterans Affairs Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn said this week that a survey of veterans found 69 per cent liked the lump sum payment, but that he was concerned that three out of every 10 soldiers were not satisfied. His department is looking at other options such as delivering the money in several installments.
Natynczyk, who has taken care in his term to highlight the cohort of wounded soldiers coming out of Afghanistan, said his “starting position” in the debate is that “we can’t do enough for our wounded soldiers.”
“We can’t do enough in terms of their recovery, in terms of their rehabilitation, in terms of ensuring they have all the wherewithal to gain their independence again, especially those soldiers who have suffered amputation.”
And he acknowledged that the lump-sum payment “doesn’t work for everybody.”
Prime Minister Stephen Harper said himself in Prince Edward Island Friday that there will be some necessary adjustments as soldiers from World War II die and the government focuses its attention on helping Afghan war vets.
“Those who have been injured in Afghanistan will become our increasing priority and that will demand some adjustment on how we run veterans programmes and is subject to a comprehensive view,” he said.
The Liberal party’s veteran’s critic, Rob Oliphant, said what’s needed is a mixed system that can provide a lump sum payment when appropriate and provide a safety net to soldiers in the form of phased pay-outs when that is the best option.
“This one size doesn’t fit all,” he said.
Oliphant is also trying to recall the House of Commons Veteran’s Affairs committee to urge the government to give Stogran a second term, particularly now that Natynczyk has come out in support of his criticisms.
That could take some time, as could the changes that the ombudsman would ultimately like to see happening. Stogran wrote on his official website Friday that if Canadians are truly upset about the way veterans are being treated, they need to exert influence on federal politicians.
“Because much of what is needed to be done is rooted in legislation, only Canada’s Members of Parliament and Senators can make those changes. The only way substantive change is going to occur is if Canada’s parliamentarians realize that this issue is a significant and urgent issue for Canadians,” he wrote, noting that veterans make up 3 per cent of the voting population, a figure that rises to 10 per cent when immediate family is factored in.
the 48th regulator
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
One thing about the CDS, is that he has been a champion of recognizing, treating, and removing the stigma ofOSIs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJHEnVfw6dU
http://www.dnd.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?cat=02&id=3015
dileas
tess
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJHEnVfw6dU
http://www.dnd.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?cat=02&id=3015
dileas
tess
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Thank you CDS!
However why do I have suspicion that they will use splitting the 30,000 in 5 payments as a solution and totally ignore that the system was much better before and move back to a monthly disability pension.
Why does it seem Canada is really great at inventing new things that don't work, then doing a piss porr job of trying to re invent it?
I.e Assult troop, tank squadrons etc etc etc
However why do I have suspicion that they will use splitting the 30,000 in 5 payments as a solution and totally ignore that the system was much better before and move back to a monthly disability pension.
Why does it seem Canada is really great at inventing new things that don't work, then doing a piss porr job of trying to re invent it?
I.e Assult troop, tank squadrons etc etc etc
- Reaction score
- 114
- Points
- 680
Baden Guy said:
Mr. Minister of Veterans Affairs - you seem to like to quote this "69 %" figure who "like" the lump sum option over the monthly pension.
Here's some questions for you:
1) Who and where are those 69%? - I have yet to meet a single one of them ... at least one who has served in this millenium's conflict;
2) Were just those Vets who would be affected by the "lump sum" over the "monthly pension" polled and our Cold War counterparts? Or
3) Did your Department send this survey/poll to WWII Veterans and those from Korea as well? And, if so,
4) Exactly what "question" did your bureaucrats actually ask them? Was it something like:
a) If you were injured today, would you rather receive a lump sum payment or a monthly pension? or
b) If DVA were to offer you today a lump sum in lieu of your monthly pension, which would you take?
5) With all due respect to our WWII Vets and our Korean Veterans --- I know what I'd choose in response to a question like the above if it were posed to me and I was in my late 80s. If the question was such as the above, I know exactly who those "3 out of 10 not happy" people are - today's Vets. Is that how you skewed the numbers of this 69%??
I certainly suspect it is.
You want to look after our Veterans Sir?? Then re-instate their monthly disability pensions and ensure they are looked after in a respectful and dignified manner for the rest of their lives. After all, their injuries - earned at their expense on behalf of Canada - will affect them each and every month for the rest of their lives ...
Installments!!?? Give me a freakin' break. Invest it!!?? Give me a freakin' break.
Hmmmm - here's my choice (hypothetical): Buy myself a handicapped accesible vehicle & pay off my house and renovate it for the wheel-chair ramp and all the other things necessary so that I can live daily with some concept of mobility and semblance of order and dignity ... but starve afterwards because I can't work for the rest of my life and have to heat it, have hydro, eat, etc etc.
Nope that grand old 250K doesn't quite do the trick now does it?? Invest what??
- Reaction score
- 4,118
- Points
- 1,260
Chief of Defence Staff Walter Natynczyk has weighed in as well. Veterans are being treated unfairly.
“He has certainly voiced with clarity what the issues are,” Gen. Natynczyk said on Friday. “The issues are absolutely correct issues.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadas-top-soldier-backs-ombudsmans-campaign-for-veterans/article1680781/
“He has certainly voiced with clarity what the issues are,” Gen. Natynczyk said on Friday. “The issues are absolutely correct issues.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadas-top-soldier-backs-ombudsmans-campaign-for-veterans/article1680781/
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
ArmyVern said:
Well said and 100% correct.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 62
- Points
- 560
Did you stop to think that a bunch of guys spewing off their personal views, whether they are founded in truth, or rumour, or completely false, to the Media would only necessitate a large amount of clarification and correction by the CDS, deflecting him in his attempts to find a solution to the problems faced by injured Vets? If the CDS, the CF, have some plan in the works, these outbursts only make the job more difficult, with the need to correct false or misinformed statements.
This is starting to look like the fiasco of the Wikileaks claim that four Canadians were killed by Friendly Fire. False or misinformed statements only muddy the waters and add to the problems facing those striving to create a solution.
This is starting to look like the fiasco of the Wikileaks claim that four Canadians were killed by Friendly Fire. False or misinformed statements only muddy the waters and add to the problems facing those striving to create a solution.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Greymatters said:
What this is referring to is, it's been brought up at ACVA and Other places by different organization that, while different Government area's hire people in the field of experience, so for hypothetically treasury board, they higher accountants, or people with accounting experience, someone in say Parks needs a certain experience in a field to get hired, so each department hires people with a certain field of experience as to that department.
VAC in this case DOESN"T hire people as per say ex-military, well they may, but a very very low percentage, like 3 or 4 I dunno, but everyone Does NOT have Military Experience, so therefore when your calling and speaking to people, and you explain things or how things are in the Military, they don't understand the culture cause they have no Military experience, therefore can't and don't understand what we have gone through.
So it's brought up that the other department hires people with specific qualifications, why does VAC not follow this, and they hire people with Non-Military, so this is the argument, other departments hire requiring specific quals and VAC doesn't.
Same with VRAB, they are adjudicating or making decisions about your claim, and everyone tried to explain to them what they experienced in the Military, like Camping out in the winter, cold frosty day's there, or what they endured during field exercises, and stuff like that, but since they have no Military experience of there own, it sorta fly's over their heads as to what we went/go through, but having someone with Military Experience say, Ex Infantry or a Purple trade, Armoured, someone who is explaining his field exercise and how it went wrong, and how his injury was done, The Ex-Military people can associate with the person and know what he had endured since they had/have been in that situation themselves, if you know what I mean..
For example I can say, Yeah I froze my but off doing a 2 hour security detail in a fox hole at -25 degree's, and they go Hmm, but someone with Military experience would go, Dam, ya I know how ya felt, cause they have at one point in time done that. And know that yes you can get frost bite in your feet or hands, ears from being in that situation, where non-military well they just can't imagine how cold that 2 hours in a fox hole actually feels or how cold it gets not moving around.
And that's why the argument is to have Ex-Military people hired into VAC who know the extremes we have gone though..
okay enough i am now blabbering... that's the Gist of things
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
George Wallace said:
Come on, George...you're not really suggesting that it would have been too much work for the CDS to politely inform the individuals who were to be interviewed of what the CDS' game plan was? "Groom them", so to speak? If the members who were to be interviewed had assurances that the CDS was onside, then I'm sure there would never have been a "muzzled members" story to write about. If the members got the impression that they're being muzzled, then there's a problem. It sure looks like that's the case.
You've been around this outfit longer than I have - surely you must know that when The Boss tells people that they're not being forbidden from speaking at a conference, but suggests that it's not a wise move for them to do so, it amounts to the same damn thing.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 62
- Points
- 560
Occam
I was having a hard time articulating that post. I still am. I am suggesting that the author of this news article, who is well known for his agenda of being an authority on the CF, JTF2, etc. may not be portraying the situation as it may really be. I am trying to say, that if the CDS and/or the CF is preparing some plan of attack or public statement, people with agendas and some good intentions, but inaccurate information may create an extra amount of work for the CDS or others in now having to drop what they are doing to correct incorrect statements to the MSM.
We have already seen the CDS make statements on this matter. Most will agree that he is on the right path. Inaccurate statements to the media, only cause him and his personnel to drop what they are doing to correct those false or incorrect statements. We all have seen the lack off willingness in the MSM to acknowledge any such corrections.
I was having a hard time articulating that post. I still am. I am suggesting that the author of this news article, who is well known for his agenda of being an authority on the CF, JTF2, etc. may not be portraying the situation as it may really be. I am trying to say, that if the CDS and/or the CF is preparing some plan of attack or public statement, people with agendas and some good intentions, but inaccurate information may create an extra amount of work for the CDS or others in now having to drop what they are doing to correct incorrect statements to the MSM.
We have already seen the CDS make statements on this matter. Most will agree that he is on the right path. Inaccurate statements to the media, only cause him and his personnel to drop what they are doing to correct those false or incorrect statements. We all have seen the lack off willingness in the MSM to acknowledge any such corrections.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
No arguments with what you're saying, George. But, if what the CDS (or his staff) told the members was factually true, then he didn't do enough to prevent one (or more) of the members from getting the perception that he/she was being muzzled. It was easily preventable. I've read what the CDS has had to say on the issue and I'm glad he's sticking his neck out there. But he can't afford to be shooting himself in the foot by making it appear that he's muzzled the troops, either.
Similar threads
