For an administration that purports to care about its veterans and soldiers, the Harper government’s treatment of the National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman over the past two weeks has been subpar at best.
Documents obtained first by the Ottawa Citizen show that this summer, the Canadian Forces leadership dismissed two reports by their ombudsman Pierre Daigle. These reports contained the findings of a five–year investigation and concluded that defence department staff treated two former soldiers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder unfairly. In a letter to Daigle in June, Rear Admiral Andrew Smith said the military watchdog was overstepping his jurisdiction. Daigle fired back in a letter of his own, accusing the military of not “addressing the serious concerns of two former Canadian Forces members.”
Defence Minister Peter MacKay added his two cents at an international military ombudsman conference hosted by Daigle himself. He criticized Daigle and said that an ombudsman is simply a mediator who resolves complaints.
“There’s a difference from advocacy,” opined the minister. This back-and-forth has spotlighted the actual role and tasks of an ombudsman. Is Daigle stepping into dangerous territory as suggested by MacKay?
Here’s what the official mandate of the National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman says: “In addition, the Ombudsman may investigate and report publicly on matters affecting the welfare of members and employees of the Department or the Canadian Forces and others falling within his jurisdiction.”
The complaints investigated by Daigle were from two former soldiers. This is well within the boundaries of Daigle’s jurisdiction.
“This is the typical bureaucratic problem that all ombudsmen run into,” says Sean Bruyea, a retired Canadian Air Force intelligence officer, and longtime advocate for Canadian veterans. “It’s just bureaucratic avoidance.”
Bruyea says that whenever an ombudsman carries out an investigation and recommends more transparency, he is always met with a “barrage of bureaucratic excuses” from the institution he oversees.
Bruyea was himself at the centre of the infamous “Privacy Scandal” back in 2010. For years, Bruyea’s advocacy for injured soldiers and their families has drawn the ire of large Canadian bureaucracies. A major scandal broke out when it was discovered that federal bureaucrats at Veterans Affairs Canada secretly passed Bruyea’s confidential medical and financial documents to cabinet ministers. About 850 federal employees ended up having access to Bruyea’s private life through those documents. Since then he has redoubled his efforts.
“Of course, the ombudsman’s task includes advocating on behalf of individuals in the face of huge bureaucracies,” Bruyea says, “part of his job is to investigate complaints and issue recommendations as he sees fit.” Indeed, it’s difficult to see the accuracy in Smith’s accusations: Daigle seems to be well within his jurisdiction here.
The complaints he looked into were from employees of the Operational Stress Injury Social Support Program. The program is jointly run by the Defence Department and Veteran Affairs Canada, though both departments have refused to comment (as has Daigle’s office). Two veterans originally hired as peer-suppourt co-ordinators complained that they were unfairly forced to leave their positions after disagreements with management.
One, Master Cpl. Kevin Clark says that his final pay was clawed back to cover the days he missed due to illness.
MacKay’s comment on the difference between what he calls “advocacy” and mediation is also rather misleading. As someone who is trying to send Canadians a message that the Conservatives care about veterans with injuries and stress issues, his lack of enthusiasm for advocating on behalf of the troops is strange. It can only be assumed then that Daigle’s report is damaging to the overall image the Conservatives are trying to maintain, one that shows they care about veterans more than anyone else.
Daigle has praised the Conservatives and the defence department in the past for helping veterans with mental and physical health issues.
However, when it comes to accepting his recommendations on specific issues, it seems that MacKay and the top brass of the Canadian Forces would rather protect that caring image.
Michael Blaise, co-founder of the non-profit group Canadian Veterans Advocacy and a former soldier himself, agrees.
“The Conservatives’ record of care for our troops and veterans has been deplorable,” Blaise says. “The professed vision of the DND Ombudsman’s office is independence, impartiality and, most important, fairness for all.”
Blaise says that Daigle is simply fulfilling his mandate, and that this isn’t the first time Minister MacKay has shown that he does not put veterans first. Blaise is permanently disabled from injuries he received while serving in the Canadian Armed Forces in Cyprus and Germany.
“Who can forget Minister MacKay’s promises to take care of our wounded through employment retention in the Canadian Forces at the height of the combat mission,” Blaise says.
“That promise has been broken, a shattering blow to the men, women and families who trusted the Conservative government when they were promised a life, a career, a future in the darkest moments of their lives.”
“It is time for change,” he continued, “it is time for this government to restore the sacred, lifetime obligation to those they send to war, and not abandon our wounded.”