Is Prime Minister Harper Anti-Veteran?

By Perry Gray, Editor-in-Chief VeteranVoice.info (VVi)

This may seem like a very bizarre allegation, but as the publisher always says the devil is in the details.  There are many examples of the anti-veteran stance of the Harper Government.  Since forming the government in 2006, the Prime Minister has vociferously claimed to place veterans on a pedestal; however, the actions of his cabinet speak louder than empty words.  These actions are particularly disrespectful given the fact that PM Harper extended the combat mission of the CF in Afghanistan until 2011.

On 6 March 2012, the Harper Government dealt another blow to the Veterans Community by unanimously opposing an NDP motion to exempt VAC from the forecasted budget cuts.  The vote was 147 to 122 against the motion.  This sends a clear message to all Canadians that the Harper Government is willing to put veterans in harm's way, but is not willing to pay the full costs that accrue because of such operations.  This is very different from our traditional allies, the United States and Great Britain, which have excluded their respective veterans departments from budget cuts.

The cost of conflict is not just the monies spent on operations but also the cost of caring for those that become casualties of those conflicts.  These costs must be incurred before accepting more operations, but this is unlikely to happen because Prime Minister Harper appears to be not really interested in supporting the Veterans Community.

The Minister of Veterans Affairs, Steven Blaney stated, "It's an improvised and useless motion as it doesn't really improve the quality of life of veterans". Can the minister provide examples of how he has improved the quality of life for veterans?  He has had difficulty explaining programs and benefits for which he is responsible.  He has been informed that the New Veterans Charter provides less support than the older Pension Act and other legislation.

One of the most obvious examples of the Harper Government anti-veteran stance is the fact that both DND and VAC will be drastically reduced.  The former because it no longer is involved in a major operation, not with standing all of its other commitments including the ongoing mission in Afghanistan.  Since the “war on terror” continues, downsizing the CF seems premature given the likelihood that it may have to conduct other combat operations in the near future.  Until someone declares that this war is over, Canada needs to remain ready and able to deploy its forces, and usually on short notice.

VAC is preparing to reduce up to 40% of its personnel and slash hundreds of millions of dollars from its roughly $3.5 billion budget.  Minister Blaney will repeat his claims that VAC has the ability to ask for additional funding for existing clients; however, he has not clearly demonstrated that VAC does ask for more money from Treasury Board.  In fact it is more likely that VAC knows that such requests will be considered unfavourably regardless of the needs of veterans.

The key words are existing clients.  The problem is that VAC has a history of refusing many potential clients and many who are rejected have to spend years fighting to be admitted into to what is a very restricted group.  There are about 750,000 Canadians that can be defined as veterans (serving and former members of the CF and RCMP, as well as others in related services) and there are many millions of family members, who would also be potential clients.  VAC has only about 215,000 veterans as clients (about 29%).  In 2006, Greg Thompson the serving MVA, stated to a Parliamentary committee that about 86,000 war service veterans (WW1, WW2 and Korea) were not receiving Veterans Independence Program benefits (money for house cleaning, property maintenance and snow removal), and it would cost about $500 million to add these ageing veterans to the program.   His figures were contradicted by Brian Ferguson, a former ADM of VAC, who suggested the figure was about 125,000.  Mr Thompson liked to say that Canada could never do enough for its veterans, but it seemed that this did not include providing more financial support.

Another senior minister who has demonstrated his anti-veteran tendencies is Vic Toews.  When he was President of Treasury Board, he directed VAC to turn over the last remaining veterans hospital, Ste Anne de Bellevue to Quebec in 2008.  This is only two years after Greg Thompson announced that the hospital was expanding.  Minister Thompson's announcement was timely given the number of casualties suffered by the CF in Afghanistan.  The ratio of casualties (9%) was higher than even WW2, and many of the wounded were suffering from the invisible wounds defined as Operational Stress Injuries (OSI).  There was no dedicated medical facility for veterans with PTSD and other conditions, many of who did not realise the nature and extent of their injuries.  Increasing the psychiatric services of Ste Anne would have provided many with the treatment that they needed.  Instead Minister Toews ordered the transfer of the hospital.   Ironically, the Harper Government funded renovations that have not yet been completed.   Whether Quebec will allow veterans to use the hospital after the transfer has yet to be confirmed.

Mr Toews made a very bold statement recently with regards to his Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act (officially titled Bill C-30, originally titled Lawful Access Act) describing those against privacy legislation as being "for the pedophiles".  Well, Minister Toews if you close a veterans hospital aren’t you anti-veteran?

There has been a lot of public interest in Rob Anders, a member of the Commons Standing Committee on Veteran Affairs (and a former chair of that committee), who fell asleep during a presentation by veterans and then defended himself by defaming these veterans describing them as  "NDP hacks" and supporters of Russian leader Vladimir Putin.  This was not the first time that Mr Anders has been caught sleeping on the job and he has done so on more than one occasion in other sessions of the committee.  If he has a medical condition, then tell us, but if he is just bored, then find something else to do.  A motion to dismiss Mr Anders was tabled on 6 March 2012 by the NDP.

Going back to Minister Blaney, he has shown a reluctance to meet with veterans advocates and makes many misleading statements about his department.  Mike Blais, President of Canadian Veterans Advocacy, spent days trying to arrange a meeting with Minister Blaney to discuss the NDP motion to exempt VAC from the budget cuts.  I am surprised that he did not have Mike arrested for criminal harassment (stalking).   When he finally met with Mike, no others were permitted to participate except members of Minister Blaney's staff.  At best the minister was evasive in answering questions and he refused to support the NDP motion. 

Also on 6 March, I watched as Sean Bruyea attempted to ask Minister Blaney to explain his claims that no benefits would be cut and yet VAC reports plainly stated that most if not all of the $233 million in annual cuts will be from “compensation and financial support”. This was during a media scrum    following his departure from the session of the Commons Standing Committee on Veteran Affairs.  All the minister would say was let go of my hand before walking away.  The Minister and his staff do not respond to e-mails from advocates and are very reluctant to meet with many.  Yet the Minister is happy to pose with veterans for pictures, but not discuss issues.

There have been three Harper Government ministers since 2006 and all have been ineffectual in dealing with the systemic problems of VAC.  Greg Thompson, Jean Pierre Blackburn and Steven Blaney have been involved in the expanding scandal over wide spread breaches of privacy.  None made any effort to neither stem this activity nor punish the guilty. Minister Blaney talks about his 10-point plan but there is little evidence of its effect on ending the scandal.  He also talks about his plan to cut red tape, but VAC remains bloated with too many staff involved in internal administration instead of providing client support.  About one-third of the VAC personnel are internal managers and clerical staff, leaving a very small majority providing direct support to clients. VAC employees less than 4500 people of whom 1300 are at Ste Anne and almost half the remainder work in Charlottetown. Will Minister Blaney reduce the number of management or will he let the workers be reduced?  I am betting on the second option.

The three Harper Government ministers have been responsible for the implementation of the NVC.  Government reports and academic studies have confirmed that the NVC provides less than the Pension Act.  The most disadvantaged veterans are reservists, lower ranks (private and corporal) and severely disabled.  The starting annual income of $40,000 is well below what is sufficient for a family income (poverty level) and lower than the average Canadian income of $67,000.  Thus the Harper Government is content to let many veterans live like paupers in one of the most prosperous countries in the world.  They have also failed to implement many of the almost 500 recommendations for the NVC despite a request from veterans organisations that unanimously support them.

As discussed in previous articles, VAC spends a lot of tax money on shuttling personnel between Charlottetown and Ottawa.  If even a fraction of these expenses had been invested in communications equipment, there would be less need for all that travel.  Is the minister unwilling to use Skype or some other service to conduct business with his deputies?  Is he afraid that Minister Toews will use C-30 to listen to VAC communications to uncover pedophiles in the department?  Or is the minister concerned that veterans may overhear sensitive information?  What does VAC have to hide that is so sensitive? It is more likely that VAC does not want to discuss openly the inept management that has plagued it for decades as revealed in many government reports on VAC (including one report from 2010 which was classified as secret).

Prime Minister Harper and his ministers also failed to re-structure the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB), despite an election commitment in 2006.  I contend that VRAB's annual budget of about $11 million is a complete waste of government revenues (your tax dollars).  Few veterans who have experienced the dehumanising antics of VRAB have little good to say about its poor performance.  VAC uses VRAB as a dumping place for the majority of veterans who are dissatisfied with the meagre offerings of VAC (the average financial support is 15-25%).  VRAB is like no other aspect of the Canadian legal system in that veterans are unable to confront the VAC employees who decide how much support will be given to the veteran.  Instead, the veteran must provide evidence to justify their appeals, while VAC is never questioned.

The Harper Government seems content to have veterans make costly appeals to federal courts to redress their grievances and such legal actions can cost about $25,000.  Rarely has a government minister intervened to help veterans in the appeal process. 

Minister Thompson provided the following information when asked to intervene in a case:

" In fact, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board is an independent quasi-judicial tribunal created by an Act of Parliament. It has full and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and rule on all applications for review and appeal that may be made to the Board under the Pension Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and other Acts of Parliament. As Minister of Veterans Affairs, I do not have the authority to intervene in a case. The recourse to Veterans is the appeal process set out in the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act."

The reality is that he could have done something according to sections 42 and 43 of the VRAB Act:

“If the Minister considers it appropriate that an inquiry be held, a judge, supernumerary judge or former judge of the Federal Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal or the Federal Court, in this section and section 43 referred to as a "judge", shall conduct the inquiry.”

In addition to the Veterans Community, the Harper Government is indifferent to the concerns of the Union of Veterans Affairs Employees (UVAE).  The union president, Yvan Thauvette, has criticised the planned cuts:

"They are cutting positions even if they don't know what will be the end out of those changes into the system. So that's sad," said Thauvette.

"People are overwhelmed in a lot of district offices. Service delivery, they want to cut positions and most of those positions are frontline staff people. Do you believe that the service will be the same? No it won't."

There is no plan to transfer employees to other government agencies, and even if there were, most agencies are also being reduced. 

Some activities will be delegated to Service Canada and private contractors (see below for comments by PSAC on this outsourcing).  Such outsourcing will mean that it is more difficult to get information and services from VAC.  The Minister will state that the new Benefits Navigator and the VAC website will help veterans to learn more about programs and benefits.  Unfortunately, the website is difficult to use and needs to be significantly improved before it can replace experienced VAC personnel.  This will take decades to implement given the past experiences with VAC technology.  The deputy minister stated that VAC is still in the “dark, dark ages”.

Who will be updating VAC technology?  A much smaller and much more overworked staff.  VAC needs more front line workers not less, both to replace retiring staff and deal with increasing numbers of clients.  There are more veterans needing case managers than in the past.  An ideal ratio is one case manager for 40 clients, but many have up to 1200 clients.  How many will continue to work with a larger case load plus the anarchy of policy changes and conflicting decisions as VAC “cuts its red tape”.   

VAC is not an ideal working environment for many of its client services personnel.  There may be reductions or closures of offices outside of Charlottetown, which means that veterans will have to travel longer distances to meet with their case managers/area counsellors and vice versa.  Personal contact will be increasingly supplemented by impersonal technology or alien call centres.

VAC is unable to contact many potential clients, particularly those homeless veterans who have been featured in recent media reports.  The Harper Government seems content to have provincial and municipal agencies as well as charity organisations deal with these responsibilities.  Yet it is the federal government's responsibility to provide health care for the CF, the RCMP and the Veterans Community, but the Harper Government does not want to be reminded of their legal duty to honour the social covenant between Canada and its veterans.

For the veteran who does not have a computer or does not do very much with a computer, the future looks bleak.  For potential clients of VAC, expect longer delays in becoming clients. It is unlikely that there will be an increase in clients as both clients and VAC personnel decline through attrition.  Client numbers will have to be kept low so that VAC can downsize as required.  The veterans who will suffer the most are the homeless as there is nowhere for them to live and therefore few ways to deliver the necessary services. 

So thank you Prime Minister Harper for showing how much you and your government care about veterans and their families.  Is this the way that Canada will honour the sacrifices of our heroes? Your examples hardly reflect the dignity and respect for the Veterans Community that Canada has claimed for decades.

PSAC Comments:

The government says the goal of Service Canada is to provide better, one-stop service to more Canadians in more communities, delivered with the right service attitude.

The PSAC is concerned about how this new initiative will affect the quality of service to the public and to our members who provide those services.

We are getting a picture from our members in the field. Here are some examples that contradict the employer's claims:

The employer insists that Service Canada will improve front-line service to the public, but many members are telling us that their managers have instructed them to direct more citizens to computers and that the quality of person-to-person service is being undermined; managers have told some of our members that jobs in the new agency will be generic and demand less specialized knowledge, raising concerns that de-skilled front-line jobs may be reduced to that of “Wal-Mart greeting”.

Unrealistic time limits are placed on workers who serve clients, mostly at call-centres, affecting our members' workload and the depth and quality of service to the public.

The employer claims that most job losses will be fair and mostly through attrition, but term workers are already being terminated, and casual workers and students are being hired to do their work. The employer claims that front-line jobs at Service Canada will be interesting and rewarding, but we've heard workers are being asked to serve the public supported only with one-page reference sheets provided by departments and agencies; we've heard reports that in some cases as little as two hours of training is being provided.

The employer has said that they will not privatize, but members are concerned about privatization and that more of their work will be transferred to private sector employers like Quantum, a private company that currently operates 1-800-O Canada.

As the PSAC develops a strong and effective action plan to protect our members and the quality of services to the public, we will need to know from our members in the field what is being done in your workplaces.

If you have examples similar to the ones outlined above or other examples that contradict the employer's claims about protecting the quality of your jobs and of the service to the public, we urge you to forward the information to your PSAC Component or nearest PSAC Regional Office.

Please include what managers said and the exact workplace locations where these instructions are being given. It would also be helpful if you can provide us with documents, where they exist, in which these instructions have been written down. Also, if you have met with your Member of Parliament, let us know with whom and what the MP or his/her representative said during your meeting. You can forward your information to workingforcanadians@psac.com.

Any information you provide will be treated in strict confidence and used only to ensure our members' rights are protected.

 

chiefeditor@veteranvoice.info