|
Working
with Turkeys
Perry Grey - Chief
Editor VVi
VVi 10 Aug 2011 db per
This
article may ruffle some feathers, but that is the intent.
The full quote is as follows:
“It
is hard to soar with the eagles when you work with a bunch of
turkeys.”
You
may have seen this in offices as it is a popular quote alone or in a
cartoon. It is rather
appropriate given the long standing conflict between the Veterans
Community and the federal government.
As members of the CF and RCMP, we are told to be proud of our
service and sacrifice as ours are noble professions.
Yet it is hard to feel patriotism given the lacklustre
support from the federal government, particularly VAC.
This department is not the only organisation that could be
associated with the above mentioned turkeys as some of the veterans
groups and the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman (OVO) have also been
negligent in advocating for Veterans despite their joint obligations
to treat the Veterans Community with dignity and respect.
There
are quite a few veterans organisations but none of them truly
represent the majority of the Veterans Community.
The two most important are the the Royal Canadian Legion
(RCL) and the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police Veterans Association (RCMPVA).
There are plenty of other groups of which Veterans are
members and that represent the Veterans Community:
-
Korea
Veterans Association of Canada
-
Veterans
of Canada.ca
-
Canadian
Peacekeeping Veterans Association
-
Canadian
Army Veteran Motorcycle Units
-
Army,
Navy & Air Force Veterans in Canada Association
-
Royal
Canadian Naval Association
-
Canadian
Association of Veterans in United Nations Peacekeeping
-
Canadian
Veterans Advocacy
-
Gulf
War Veterans Association of Canada
-
National
Council of Veteran Associations
-
NATO
Veterans Organization of Canada
-
Veterans
UN-NATO Canada
-
regimental
and branch associations
So
I shall address some of the issues that make VAC, OVO and some
Veterans group, such as the RCL, seem like a bunch of turkeys
instead of eagles. The
three organisations have played a role in depriving the Veterans
Community of its democratic rights and their collaboration behind
closed doors continues to put nails in the coffin of Veterans
rights. It is only in
recent years that public awareness of the problems has been
significantly increased, but not necessarily by these three
organisations, which seem content to do everything behind closed
doors and thus avoid any public scrutiny and more importantly public
criticism.
All
that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do
nothing.
Edmund Burke
RCL
The
RCL has done a lot of good work for Veterans and other Canadians.
Its service officers and other members have helped many
Veterans on a case by case basis; however, its strategic role has
been limited. It has
not ensured that all Veterans and their families are treated fairly
in accordance with the democratic principles (moral, ethical and
legal) of Canada. Probably
its single greatest mistake was its support for the New Veterans
Charter. Along with
five other groups selected by VAC, the RCL was invited to
participate in a publicity campaign for the NVC. None of these groups was allowed to analyse the charter nor
were they given a copy of the draft NVC.
Instead they trusted that VAC would honour its commitment to
make the NVC “living legislation”.
What should have been done was discussed in a statement
posted on the RCL Ontario Command website:
Original
Statement Posted to RCL Ontario Commend website
(Also see VVi
2006 Archives...)
|
Comments
to our members on the New Veterans Charter
Introduction
Several
of our members and service officers have asked Ontario
Command to provide information on the New Veterans Charter
(NVC) and our perspective on the charter. The NVC was
implemented on April 3, 2006 and introduces a number of new
wellness-based programs for eligible modern day veterans and
some additional assistance for eligible family members. The
NVC was introduced on the basis of cost neutrality which
required that the new programs had to be developed from
within the framework of the existing funding.
This no doubt presented considerable challenges in
the development of the new legislation as the funding for
new programs would require sacrifices from within the
existing benefit system.
Background
The
Dominion Command of The Royal Canadian Legion has recently
issued a policy statement on the NVC, which the reader can
find under SB/New Veterans Charter on www.legion.ca.
The new programs that have been introduced with the new
charter are also outlined on this same website and on the
VAC website at www.vac-acc.gc.ca.
Comments
on the Process
While
the Dominion Command Legion policy statement refers to
extensive and comprehensive collaborations between the RCL
and other organizations in the development of this major
legislation, the Legion’s provincial commands, their
service officers and their veterans services committees had
no meaningful opportunity to understand or participate in
the debate on the new charter and the ‘trade-offs’ that
had to be made to fund the new benefits. In fact, there has
been no organizational debate within the various levels of
the Legion on the costs of this legislation.
The full details of the NVC were released to the
provincial commands only after the legislation had been
fast-tracked through parliament and the senate. As a gesture
of inclusion, the provincial commands and their service
officers were later invited to comment on the regulations
but by then the dye was substantially cast and there was
little appreciation for questions regarding the trade-offs.
Ontario Command regrets that the extensive and comprehensive
multi-lateral consultations on the NVC did not in any
meaningful way include the provincial commands and their
experienced service officers, who have worked in the field
for many years. According to the latest statistics issued by
Dominion Command, our service officers prepared 49% of the
Legion pension applications going forward in the last four
quarters and participated in 75% of Legion reviews. Given
the opportunity to debate the pros and cons of this
legislation, we might have asked:
1.
How much will the government save by eliminating the
automatic pension paid to a spouse when a veteran dies of
his non-pensioned condition and what proportion of those
savings will now be allocated to those same widows and
widowers from the new benefits?
2.
Are multi-year projections available which show how
the cost neutrality was achieved on a per program basis?
Have the savings on the expenditures that have been
eliminated been identified separately and have the costs for
each new program introduced been similarly identified?
Since lump sum payments have replaced lifetime
pensions, the multi-year projections would need to cover
several decades to be meaningful.
3.
If the program is needs-based, why is there no
recognition of a spouse and dependants in the disability
award or the earnings loss benefits?
4.
If the program is needs-based, why is the widow of a
private who is killed in Afghanistan entitled to less
earnings loss income than the widow of a more senior member
or officer when they both have 2 children, given that salary
( which generally increases with rank) had no standing under
the former legislation?
5.
Given the haste with which this legislation was
passed, did the members of parliament and the members of the
senate engage in any detailed and meaningful analysis of the
costs (lost benefits) and benefits of the new charter? Did
they understand the impact of dividing the pension benefits
into non-economic and economic awards, the impact of the
offsets against the earnings loss income and how taxation
and lost indexing will affect the net benefits over the
lifetime of a recipient? Did they understand the full
impacts of the NVC when introduced in tandem with the
revised Table of Disabilities?
6.
Did
these same members of parliament and members of the senate
understand that some veterans will surely exhaust their
benefits before their life is spent whereas under the former
system there was a guaranteed non-taxable income for life?
Recommendations
Ontario
Command feels that the process for introducing this major
and very complex legislation was flawed and that it has been
misleading to portray extensive and widespread scrutiny.
Debate and analysis that should have occurred within the
House of Commons and the Senate did not occur because the
members were largely unaware that there was any downside to
this bill and wanted to rush the legislation through for
fear the government would fall.
In
good conscience, Ontario Command must stand in support of
the small group of disabled veterans who have repeatedly
asked for a period of public analysis, debate and sober
reflection on the NVC. The legislation has been very
positively promoted and hopefully will stand the test of
greater scrutiny. If it does not, we can make our collective
voices known.
Policy
Development
Ontario
Command recommends that policy development on veterans’
issues within the Legion should not occur in isolation of
the other levels of the organization and that it should be
mandatory that the other levels have input into the policies
that are announced.
Ombudsman
While
it is true that members have access to representation at no
cost and that there are multiple levels of redress within
the disability pension and award system, we support an
Ombudsman in all affairs related to veterans.
The Ombudsman would serve as the point of last resort
for members to challenge systemic injustices and
bureaucratic intransigence. While, the Legion has
traditionally served as an advocate for veterans, it lacks
the jurisdictional reach and powers of the Ombudsman. We see
no reason why the separate accountability between the
Canadian Forces and Veterans Affairs Canada would be
compromised if the current DND Ombudsman’s mandate was
expanded to include veterans served by VAC. The
infrastructure and the competencies already exist within the
office of the current DND Ombudsman.
Lump
sum payment
We
believe that all applicants should be offered the choice of
a lump sum payment or a monthly pension, equivalent to the
pension paid under the former legislation; and where there
are indications of psychological instability, we feel the
member should be placed on the monthly pension until he is
deemed capable of making a choice.
Conclusion
The
old saying that the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away
applies to the NVC. Peter
has paid for Paul and collectively we need to publicly air
the advantages and the drawbacks associated with the new
benefit programs. We owe that to the men and women who
serve. The old benefit system undoubtedly required
improvements as it did not provide an easy transition into
civilian life for many disabled veterans, but it had its
strengths. There has been considerable ‘gutting’ of the
benefits provided under the former legislation that Ontario
Command feels warrants broader and more detailed public
examination to determine if the NVC is indeed worthy of the
sacrifices that have been made.
Notwithstanding
our concerns, we urge all modern day veterans who have
medical and vocational needs to contact VAC to learn about
these new benefits and to determine if they might qualify
for any of the new programs. We also encourage service
officers and benefit recipients under the new charter to let
us know in writing how well the new programs meet their
needs and where improvements can be made. |
This
statement was quickly removed from the website. In my opinion it was a mistake because the RCL and the other
five groups should have conducted a thorough review of the draft
NVC. After all it is
one of the most important roles that Veterans groups can perform on
behalf of the Veterans Community.
The RCL certainly considers it to be so based on its website:
Since
inception in 1926, Legion strives to secure adequate pensions and
benefits for veterans and their dependants, dealing directly with
Federal Government.
The
replacement of a life long pension with a lump sum should have been
rejected based on this principle alone. Why has the RCL failed to
address this major problem?
I
think that the RCL was more interested in fostering good relations
with VAC than in serving the Veterans Community.
Legion
continues pressure on the federal government to improve benefits for
those who serve and have served as their needs change.
It
is obviously failing to be effective in achieving this objective!
Probably because of its relationship with VAC:
Relationship
with Veterans Affairs Canada has been very collaborative and
productive
It
would make more sense to be less collaborative in order to be more
productive!
According
to the RCL website:
Legion
is non-profit, dues-supported, no financial assistance from any
outside agency.
This
is contradicted by statements that the federal government gives
monies to the RCL. Is
one of the reasons that the RCL prefers to collaborate with VAC, so
that it can continue to receive federal support? Or is that the RCL
is concerned that it will lose employment opportunities within VAC
if it is too critical of VAC?
I
would be more concerned with the declining membership than a few
career opportunities. The
RCL may presume to represent the Veterans Community, but in reality
its membership is only a minority of that community. Of note, the RCL is not the oldest Veterans group either (The
Army, Navy & Air Force Veterans in Canada Association
was formed in 1840).
That
it is also one of the country's largest community service
organizations with programs touching the lives of hundreds of
thousands of ordinary citizens every year, is known to far fewer
Canadians.
Why
is it competing with other charitable groups?
Why is not every cent, nickel, dime, quarter and dollar
benefiting the Veterans Community?
Is its main effort to help seniors and youth groups or
Veterans?
The
Legion's annual economic impact on communities exceeds $375 million
Yet
how does this money benefit the Veterans Community?
$2.1
million direct support to needy veterans (.56%)
$56,300,000
for salaries (15%)
$11,300,000
to other charities and community projects (3%)
$18,900,000
for property services and taxes (maintaining RCL property) (5%)
The
Legion has committed $259,000,000 to veterans’ and seniors’
housing projects and has 7,000 units in place (2006).
The
bulk of the RCL annual budget is not defined and it can be assumed
that much is spent on the housing projects (or not).
My math suggests that the RCL does not want to disclose how
little is actually invested in the Veterans Community.
It could be doing a lot more, particularly for homeless
Veterans and those in need of long term care.
I
think that the RCL mission statement is too broad for an
organisation supposedly serving the Veterans Community:
|
Our
(RCL) mission is to serve veterans, which includes serving military and
RCMP members
and their families, (and) to
promote remembrance and to serve our
communities and our country.
|
I
would delete everything after remembrance.
Supporting cadets, scouts and athletes is good but should not
be priority operations, but they are.
There are many donations given outside of the Veterans
Community and we should be asking why.
OVO
Guy
Parent also seems more intent on collaborating with VAC rather than
serving the Veterans Community.
He has done nothing significant to inspire confidence or
demonstrate that he will achieve anything of value.
His long term objective is to identify 15 problems over the
course of his five year term. This
will be his legacy. This
hardly seems worth the effort given that many of us can identify 15
problems in five minutes.
He
willingly accepted the job without first demanding that VAC rectify
many of the concerns expressed by his predecessor, Patrick Stogran,
as well as other Veterans. He
remains a subordinate of the Minister of Veterans Affairs and lacks
the independence of a true ombudsman.
He certainly is not on par with "Parliamentary
Commissioners" (Lobbying, Information, Privacy).
He is not a intermediary between VAC and the Veterans
Community, even if he is described as an impartial and independent
officer. His job should
be to challenge systemic injustices and bureaucratic intransigence,
and not be another compliant subordinate of VAC.
I
am not impressed by his adoption of one of the slogans of VVi –
one veteran – for a number of reasons.
It highlights his lack of originality and it continues the
insincerity of the department in which he is employed as 2005 was
the Year of the Veteran (more aptly called the year that Veterans
were further ripped off). He
also omits the important second part of the slogan – one charter.
Where the RCL and other Veterans groups failed to
secure adequate pensions and benefits for veterans and
their dependants by meekly accepting the NVC, the ombudsman
should be ensuring that he does succeed.
As
the publisher of VVi mentions frequently, the devil is in the
details, and this is obvious in the words used by the OVO.
For example, its observation papers inform readers
(not Veterans) about issues that may
constitute unfair treatment of Veterans and their families.
There have been over 400
recommendations for changes to the NVC and only a handful have been
considered by VAC. This
is one of the most obvious examples of bureaucratic intransigency
within VAC in recent years and does not address the decades of
intransigence during which VAC unfairly administered pensions and
services prior to the NVC.
The single biggest systemic injustice is the failure to
secure equalities for the Veterans Community which is the reason for
the “one
Veteran, one charter” campaign.
The discrepancies between older Veterans legislation and the
NVC have been discussed in detail on this website as well as
proposals for eliminating them. I refer you to the comparison chart and the aide
memoire (How To Repair The Social
Contract Between Veterans And The Canadian Government)
posted on this website. By
the way, the OVO received a draft copy of the aide memoire and
suggested its official title.
| "What VAC fails to
acknowledge is that there is only one category of veterans, service
members having voluntarily served in this country's military forces
in time of war and peace, past, present and into the future."
National Council of Veteran Associations (NCVA)
|
| "Whether active duty, retired, or reserve - is someone
who, at one point in his/her life, signed a blank cheque made
payable to "The People of Canada", for an amount up to and
including my life." VVi
|
Until the federal
government accepts this concept and ensures that the Veterans
Community is treated fairly and equitably, the ombudsman and other
organisations will have a very important role and responsibility
as advocates.
The
OVO was contacted by 10,000 people in 2010 and of these about
2,000 were complaints. Were
the remainder wrong numbers or did OVO deflect the callers to
another organisation? The
latter is in keeping with the unofficial motto of VAC “deny,
deflect and defer”.
The
ombudsman recently appointed his members of the OVO advisory
committee. I question
the validity of yet another advisory group.
VAC has appointed several in recent times, but failed to
heed the advice. The
ombudsman did not meet with the original membership of the OVO
advisory committee to my knowledge and it is unclear what role the
new members will play in providing advice. VAC invited advisors to a meeting in Ottawa
on 14 June 2011, but it seemed more like an opportunity for the
newly appointed Minister of Veterans Affairs, the Honourable
Steven Blaney, to participate in a public relations event.
One of the reasons for this meeting was to discuss the
formation of a stakeholder committee.
Was it necessary to have another meeting to consider the
formation of another irrelevant committee?
Absent
from the meeting of 14 June were stakeholders representing those
most likely to be (dis)enfranchised by the NVC, namely the
Veterans of that not so peaceful mission in Afghanistan.
One
of the most obvious examples of an inefficient, but busy,
bureaucracy is the formation of committees that meet to talk.
It is not important to actually be productive, but rather
create the impression that something is being done.
This should be anathema to Veterans because of our service
and training. Problem
solving was one of the most important roles for the CF and the
RCMP. And yet VAC has
repeatedly ignored committees such as its own Special Needs
Advisory Group and the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group.
VAC even dismissed the group which was created to review
the NVC before its report was reviewed!
There
is a big difference between listening to advice and heeding it.
VAC may be good at listening, but fails to heed.
Just another example of bureaucratic intransigency that the
ombudsman should be addressing.
The
ombudsman was very clear about his intentions in his first blog
entry:
“someone has to ensure
that the debt owed to those who serve is repaid in a fair and
equitable manner. From now on, that task falls to me.
I have accepted the responsibility and I expect to follow
through with it.”
He did not want to be compared
with his predecessor, unfortunately comparisons will be likely.
The first ombudsman believed that he was dismissed or fired
because he was an outspoken critic of VAC.
If Guy Parent does not continue this trend, then he will be
unfairly compared.
His own comments should be an indication that he does not understand the
basic problems. Here
is another quote from a blog entry on Bill C-55, the Enhanced New Veterans Charter
Act:
“There are those who
believe that the bill should have included more comprehensive
amendments, and I respect this point of view. As for the idea that
we should throw out the Charter and begin anew, the number and
nature of complaints received by the Office of the Veterans
Ombudsman since 2007, does not suggest that we need to start over.”
C-55 did not address the 400
plus recommendations concerning the NVC.
The ombudsman endorses the one Veteran principle, but not
the need for one charter. This means to me that he does not support equality within the
Veterans Community. Therefore
he is content to let Veterans be segregated into war service,
peacetime and other categories.
These are not examples of minor
differences in opinion, but rather major doctrinal disagreements.
The NVC is flawed and C-55 did not remedied much, but more
importantly VAC is not being criticised for its failure to provide
adequate pensions and benefits by the one person who should be the
most important advocate of the Veterans Community.
Guy Parent can make a
difference and one option is to meet regularly and frequently with
members of the Veterans Community.
Not everything can be achieved by small select groups that
work behind closed doors.
VAC
This
is one federal department that has made an art form of going
through the motions rather than providing adequate services.
It has used smoke and mirrors, dog and pony shows, and
other meaningless things to create the illusion that it serves the
Veterans Community and Canada.
It points to committees and meetings with representatives
of the Veterans Community as examples of its willingness to
collaborate with stakeholders, and then ignores most of what might
be considered the products of such endeavours.
The
latest travesties included C-55 and the announcement that $2
billion will be allocated in the future.
As has become all too obvious, any analysis proves that
there is little of substance and even less original thought.
Yet repeatedly the Veterans groups and the OVO continue to
participate in the farcical proceedings orchestrated by VAC.
The
typical strategy is to invite each newly created advocacy group to
join the latest version of the meaningless committee and then
announce that it has continued to respond to the needs and wants
of the Veterans Community. Part
of this strategy is to ensure compliance by requiring participants
to sign non-disclosure agreements, but not let anyone have a
personal copy. This
serves two insidious purposes: nobody can discuss what transpires
and nobody has any evidence of what can or can not be discussed.
What is so sensitive about VAC that it must be protected as
part of national security?
Given
that federal legislation is only analysed by a few people, and
more importantly fewer politicians, VAC uses this strategy to
ensure that stakeholders can not do much to influence policy and
procedures.
It
is only by drawing public attention to the plight of homeless
Veterans, those in need of long term care facilities and other
issues that Canadians are educated about the systemic problems.
Too often it is the efforts of one person or a small group that
truly highlight the sad state.
It is baffling why the larger groups that can pay for
advertising and use the media effectively are reluctant to do so.
There is interest in attending VAC events and being in
pictures with politicians and VAC officials, but much less support
for public rallies and protests that criticise VAC and the federal
government. It was
even difficult to organise national events to mark the end of the
active mission in Afghanistan (and it is unlikely that it will be
celebrated along with 11 November, VE and VJ events).
Why do Veterans have to resort to hunger strikes, lawsuits
and other extreme acts to get the benefits and services that
should be easily accessible from a supportive government on behalf
of a grateful nation?
I
saw a good quote on a bumper sticker:
Dissent
Is What Rescues Democracy From A Quiet Death Behind Closed Doors.
Molly Ivins
Hopefully
you will remember this and join the national protest on 5 November
and every other day. There are over 800,000 Veterans of the CF, the RCMP and
related services plus their families who comprise the Veterans
Community. We do not
have to limit our advocacy efforts to those hand picked by VAC to
represent us. We are
our own best representatives and just by participating we can
demonstrate our discontent. Our
dissent can rescue democracy from a quiet death behind the closed
doors of VAC. You can
start by celebrating Afghanistan Veterans Appreciation Day on
Sunday, 14 August.
Be
an eagle and do not let some turkey decide what is fair and
equitable for you.
We
can all make a difference, even if it is with small gestures and
acts. When we are
young, we believe that we can often do anything and this makes us
fearless; as we get older, we can become fearful.
Find that which motivates you and use it to help to make a
difference.
"Courage
doesn't always roar. Sometimes courage is the little voice at the
end of the day that says I'll try again tomorrow. " Mary
Anne Radmacher
“The mark of the immature man is that he wants
to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of a mature man is that
he wants to live humbly for one." Wilhelm
Stekel
If
you think that you can not make a difference, then just remember
this Scottish proverb:
“Twelve
highlanders and a bagpipe make a rebellion.”
One
Veteran, one charter.
Post
Script
I
do not understand why it is difficult for the federal government
to realise that it acted unlawfully in the development and
approval of the NVC. It
is also baffling why the federal government permits a multitude of
standards with regards to associated issues such as the clawback
of SISIP and other financial benefits.
Maybe
a lawyer can properly explain why all Veterans are not entitled to
the same benefits and services.
Hopefully, the same lawyer can also include discussion of
why Veterans are not entitled to the same standards as other
members of the federal government and the public service. My reading of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms indicates
that there should not be any significant discrepancies. But then the CF and the RCMP are supposed to defend Canadian
democracy, not practice it.
From
the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Equality
Rights
Equality
before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
15. (1) Every
individual is equal before and under the law and has
the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the
law without discrimination and, in particular,
without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic
origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or
physical disability.
Affirmative
action programs
(2) Subsection
(1) does not preclude
any law, program or activity that has as its object the
amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or
groups including
those that are disadvantaged because of race,
national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or
mental or physical disability.(84) |
(Perry
Gray is a military veteran, having served 26 years in the CF Land Force
(Army). He has been the Chief Editor of
VeteranVoice.info since 2003.)
|
Canadian Forces Chief of Defence Staff Military Family Fund:
