Created  with
 db QwikSite Personal
Not for Commercial Use     

Query-Record Type More Info.

Query-Record Type More Info.
Ser2,558
Article Date06-03-2019
Record TYPEPeriodical
Article TOPICBureaucracy
Article TitleVVi PERIODICAL - Mar 2019 Issue No: 201991
Article Content

Feature: The Ministerial Revolving Door
PDF Copy...Click Here!...

CLIQUEZ ici! / CLICK Here!

PERIODICAL - Mar 2019
Issue No: 201991




What is VeteranVoice.info?
The Ministerial Revolving Door
Who Is Behind the Curtain?
How you can help!
Recommended Links
VViwww.VeteranVoice.info



VeteranVoice.info

VVi is for you, all veterans, regardless of whether you belong to a veteran organization or not. VVi is a distribution centre, a conduit for making sure that the information you need as a veteran is there for you in a timely fashion. Our aim is to provide a forum for all Canadian veterans, serving members and their families to have access to information pertaining to veteran rights.

VVi is an independent site, not associated with any governmental department, agency or veteran organization. VeteranVoice.info is maintained by independent contributions.

Page top
The Ministerial Revolving Door

By Perry Grey, Chief Editor VVi

“A department that's seen seven ministers since 2010 could use some continuity”

Prime Minister Trudeau is continuing the tradition of replacing ministers rather quickly much like his predecessor Stephen Harper. This is a comparison that the prime minister would not like. Both picked people who not only angered Veterans, but also embarrassed the government.

The first choice in 2015 was Kent Hehr, who seemed like a good choice in that he was physically disabled. This fit in nicely with the social justice warrior philosophy that the prime minister seemed to embrace. Kent seemed very sociable and liked to have “selfies” with Veterans. How much progress he made in completing his mandate letter is questionable because the most important issue, reinstatement of lifelong pensions was rarely if ever discussed.

Kent committed the greatest sin by revealing that he was a “pussy grabber” which led to his swift dismissal and exile to the back bench. He was also accused of a number of other lesser crimes such as insensitive comments about thalidomide survivors, condescending remarks to Veterans and using his position to help his father (neoptism).

The second choice was a personal friend of the prime minister, Seamus O’Reagan, who also seemed a good choice as the brother of a Veteran. He spent a lot more time discussing pension for life, particularly as there was a need to appear to be achieving the most important objectives in the prime minister’s mandate letter (both ministers were given near identical letters) before the 2019 election.

He spent a lot of time also discussing his own issues with the media. This included his “career transition”, which he found very traumatic and resulted in depression and alcoholism. Unfortunately, he sinned by comparing himself to Veterans, who had similar problems. This made the inappropriate comments of former Conservatine minister, Julian Fantino seem almost unimportant ( I am a Veteran…police officer).

Seamus compounded his mistakes by then engaging in a war of words with Veterans, specifically Sean Bruyea, with regards to the proposed pension plan. The legal case arising from this conflict has yet to be resolved so will follow Seamus to his next job of “serving” indigenous peoples.

The recent appointment of Jody Wilson-Raybould is a very curious choice as she was the Minister of Justice, who was responsible for “fighting with Veterans in the courts” (including the use of a senior lawyer to represent Seamus against Sean Bruyea in small claims court where lawyers very rarely work). Engaging in legal actions was something that the prime minister said that he would not do during the last election. So why would he blatantly insult Veterans by appointing Jody?

“She’s smart and competent but she doesn’t exude empathy,” said one colleague. “It’s an odd pick for veterans affairs.” (National Post 14 Jan 2019)

Her fist speech as MVA suggests that the appointment was disappointing:

“she said she could think of “no world in which I would consider working for our veterans in Canada as a demotion.”

But is it not promotion/demotion based on how cabinet positions are ranked? So now Veterans are getting another “failed social experiment”, who may have already sinned grievously in the mind of the prime minister.

Ms Wilson-Raybould lasted only a few weeks with her only significant contribution being the promotion of Valentines for Veterans, an annual event aimed at thanking Veterans for their service. She will be remembered more for her quick exit and forcing another cabinet shuffle…and of course expanding the SNC-Lavalin scandal.

The newest minister, Lawrence MacAulay, is both a veteran politician and familiar with the Veterans portfolio having served as Secretary of State (Veterans) under Prime Minister Chretien in the 1990’s. Of interest, he is from PEI, which is also home to VAC.

He does share one thing in common with his predecessor. Both Wilson-Raybould and MacAuley denied that Veterans Affairs was a demotion. In his first speech, the new minister stated:

"To have the honour to represent the people who preserve peace and democracy for us worldwide; that is a long place from a demotion."

But why even use that word?

Politicians, particularly veteran politicians such as MacAuley, know that choice of words is very important. Your listeners or readers can misinterpret your ideas and this is more likely if your words accentuate ambiguity.

If one should never shout “fire” in a crowded theatre, then politicians should not mention promotion or demotion with regards to cabinet appointments.

Right now, there are a lot of angry Veterans, who believe that the federal government does not care about them because of ministers and mistakes since the last election. The Pension for Life, and the political and legal crisis over a $165-million accounting error.

Over 272,000 veterans, most of them elderly, were affected by the indexing mistake and more than half of them — about 170,000 — have died. (CBC News 2 Mar 2019)

Minister MacAuley will have a lot to do if he wants Veterans to vote in the next election…four months or less. Unless he is moved in the next cabinet shuffle, which must now follow the resignation of Jane Philpott on 4 March 2019.

All four ministers appeared to be good candidates only as far as the optics of appointing “politically correct” people rather than the best choice to fill a ministerial position. It seems to Canadians that having a balance of gender, ethnicity, regionalism, etc. is far more important than specific personal qualifications. So it is rather ironic when the prime minister talks about the depth of his caucus, he does not mean experience.

This seems like the prime minister wants to hand his opponents more votes in my opinion.

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/in-the-trudeau-government-whats-a-cabinet-shuffle-for/

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wilson-raybould-veterans-seamus-oregan-1.4978148

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/macauley-veterans-payments-1.5039856

Perry Gray is a Regular Force veteran, serving as the Chief Editor of VVi. Perry has been with VVi for 18 years.
Page top
Who Is Behind the Curtain?

By Perry Grey, Chief Editor VVi

“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain” (The Wizard of Oz)

The recent cabinet shuffles have highlighted a rather disturbing trend in the high turnover of minister in the Veterans Affairs portfolio. Since 2010, there have been nine ministers (this includes one temporary appointment that of the Minister of National Defence Harjit Sajjan in February 2019). This garnered plenty of media coverage which included complaints by many Veterans about the turmoil resulting from so many ministers. This was particularly troubling with the start of the Pension for Life (one of the government’s most important 2015 election commitments) in April and the federal election in the fall.

While the rapid change in ministers was a concern, the government had endeavoured to ensure stability by appointing Walt Natynczyk as deputy minister in 2014. One of his first tasks was to do damage control for the Conservative government in the wake of Julian Fantino, who sustained criticism of his performance as minister from veterans, journalists and opposition politicians.

But is Walt Natynczyk the ideal person for his position?

On paper, he certainly seems to be. He was a career army officer, who served as Chief of Defence Staff between 2008 and 2012. So he surely appears to be the embodiment of the “veterans’ veteran”.

However, veterans know well that anyone who becomes a general officer and more importantly CDS has to be politically savvy. He was appointed CDS by Prime Minister Steven Harper, who also appointed him as DM.

This is possibly the tip of an iceberg like that which sank the Titanic.

To illustrate the potential dangers, consider the role played by Michael Wernick, the Clerk of the Privy Council, and the senior federal public servant, in the ongoing SNC-Lavalin troubles. In particular are his testimony before the House Justice Committee 21 February that included remarks on the state of on-line discourse, partisanship and the prospect of political assassinations. While answering questions, he expressed opinions viewed by opposition MP’s as biased in favour of the Liberals and indicative of him being partisan in resolving SNC-Lavalin problems.

This is far from the official role of the clerk, who has a responsibility to uphold the independence of the public service, and to provide impartial advice to the government as a whole (meaning all politicians and public servants not just the prime minister and his caucus).

The actions of Mr Wernick should be of major concern to all Canadians because public servants have to careful to avoid any partisan involvement. And this is often a major challenge. For the clerk, he is the secretary of cabinet, the head of the public service, and the deputy minister for the prime minister. This trio of responsibilities was part of a reform of the federal public service developed in the 1990’s. The clerk’s duties (a three headed monster for some critics) has been judged as unethical because it can result in promiscuous partisanship and a significant blurring of lines in the conduct of government activities.

The Gomery report of 2006 noted that there was growing evidence that the political PMO and the non-partisan and administrative PCO “seem to be merging more and more into each other,” particularly as more power has shifted to the PMO. (Note, the Gomery commission was a public inquiry into government corruption arising from yet another Quebec based scandal).

“If the Clerk of Privy Council is any indication of the quality of bureaucrats in Canada we are in more trouble than anyone realizes. No wonder issues like the Phoenix scandal occur. The man seems completely arrogant and out of touch.” (comment attached to CBC report on Wernick’s second appearance before the judiciary committee 6 March 2019)

This is not what was expected when Mr Wernick was appointed as clerk by Prime Minister Trudeau in 2016,

“This is a hugely exciting sign for the public service to make a break with a style of leadership that has led the public service away from the professionalism and non-partisanship that public servants should have,”

Canadian media has reported on the growing trend of just the opposite because of the blurring of lines between a public servants duties to serve both Canada and more specifically politicians. There have been allegations of bureaucratic partisanship, which can deeply compromise even the most ethical public servant.

Also troubling is a tendency in the public service to operate in isolation from the Canadian public. Again even ethical people can make mistakes and can also try to rationalise their actions by claiming that they were serving Canada.

The Nuremberg trials at the end of World War Two clearly showed the world that the claims of “I was just following orders” is not the perfect defence.

There is also an insidious trend in any public service known as noble cause corruption by political analysts. This is an adherence to a philosophical and ethical doctrine suggesting that people will use unethical or illegal means to attain desirable goals, a result which appears to benefit the greater good (the ends justify the means).

After all, we want to live in a society which treats everyone equally and with respect.

Sadly, society is rarely so utopian because it is hard to balance self interests and the interests of others (family, friends, etc.).

In my opinion,, the Veterans Community has been betrayed by two former senior military officers, Admiral Larry Murray and General Walter Natynczyk.

Murray, as deputy minister, encouraged Veterans Affairs to develop the NVC, but instead of overseeing its implementation, he left the department. The NVC evolved into a Frankenstein’s monster of a very complex series of programs. Its critics, of whom there were many in the Veterans Community, had many complaints that the department refused to address. Within a few years, there were over 500 recommendations provided by advocates. To date, only a handful of recommendations have actually been addressed.

One of the most glaring omissions was a comparable financial benefit similar to the Pension Act.

Enter Walt Natynczyk as deputy minister and he appeared willing to tackle problems much like Hercules and his mythical 12 labours (which no mortal could accomplish). One of his major accomplishments is the new “Pension for Life” (PFL).

Seriously after six years in the position, he thinks that the pension is great?

In my opinion, it is all part of Natynczyk’s (Machiavellian) strategy to limit meaningful debate about his administration. This is not pure speculation as it is based on witnessing how he manages the stakeholders.

The stakeholder summits were supposed to be held twice per year; once in the spring, and then in the fall. Instead they have been held more erratically. The agenda is prepared by the department with no obvious involvement by the Veterans Community, and yet these events are one of the few activities where advocates are involved directly with Veterans Affairs.

This is a typical “public relations” approach throughout the public service, in which the appearance of consulting with the public is more important than actually doing what is in the best interests of Canadians. It is more important to talk at the public than listen to the public.

The bright-eyed and bushy-tailed public servant takes the view that they do not have to be told what to do as their experience and knowledge will guide them to doing what is best for the public (and then drive the Titanic onto the iceberg…).

From his first summit, Natynczyk employed the sound military strategy of divide and conquer. The attendees were split into groups and allowed to discuss a list of department approved topics. Then one representative was asked to summarise the group discussions. There was no time allocated for question periods after lectures by the department or the discussion groups. The department never published any information concerning the summits after their conclusion.

Since there were more critics demanding a greater role, new ideas were introduced to appease the vocal minority. Six ministerial advisory groups were created as part of the commitment to improve transparency and seek consultation on issues of importance to Veterans and their families (policy, service excellence, mental health, families, care and support, and commemoration).

Natynczyk allowed selected advocates (not necessarily Veterans) to join the advisory groups. Membership of each group varied between nine and 14. There was no explanation of why the numbers are different or how members were selected, and also why some stakeholders were denied membership. Each group was allowed to meet formally under close supervision of department personnel and discuss a limited range of topics. A general summary of some meetings was published on the department’s website.

Despite the intent of improving transparency and seeking consultation, the department continued to operate with little input from the Veterans Community.

Much like Orwell’s new speak in his classic novel 1984, transparency and consultation are not defined by government as most of the population would understand the words to mean.

In terms of activity, the Policy group met four times in 2016, two times in 2017 and not once in 2018. Service Excellence met four times in 2016 and once in 2017. Mental Health had four meetings in 2016 and five in 2017 with the majority of these being teleconferences (not physical and formal meetings). Families met four times in both 2016 and 2017. Care and Support had five meetings in 2016 and two in 2017. Commemorations met three times in 2016 and twice in 2017.

You can read about the meetings and what may have been discussed on the Veterans Affairs website. I say may have been discussed because the department provided the information on each meeting and there were no actual minutes published.

According to the published terms of reference, the groups were to “meet in person two to three times per year” and “meet more frequently by teleconference.” So none of the groups have been as active as was originally intended with 2018 having little activity.

The transparency of the groups was also negated by the terms of reference, specifically as follows:
• to maintain the confidentiality of deliberations at all times;
• not to disclose privileged or protected information or information of a personal nature; and
• not to disclose the Group’s recommendations until the Minister approves the sharing of information beyond VAC; inform the co-chair(s) of any potential or perceived conflict of interest.
Therefore the members could not talk freely with their own stakeholder groups or other advocates. Thus all of the members voluntarily agreed to continue the unofficial Veterans Affairs policy of non-disclosure, which was one of the biggest problems with the new charter in 2005.

The Policy group did discuss the pension for life and stated “the lifelong pension proposed under the Mandate Letter must be more than just an apportionment or a reworking of the Disability Award into a monthly benefit”. (28 September 2017)

This is far from the Liberal election commitment to reinstate lifelong pensions. First of all to reinstate is defined as to cause something to exist again. The most obvious thing to reinstate would be the World War 2 vintage Pension Act, which still applies to many CAF Veterans and ALL RCMP Veterans. (Note the RCMP rejected the shelving of the PA).

The PFL is nothing more than a (desperate) idea championed by Veterans Affairs during the Conservative government because of the growing anger about the eradication of the PA and the introduction of the lump sum of the New Veterans Charter (aka Veterans Wellness Act). The various Liberal ministers since 2015 have been expected to promote the new pension so that they could ensure that the election commitments were achieved.

When reviewing Natynczyk’s time as both CDS and now DM, one important questions needs to be considered. What has he achieved that benefits the people that he serves?

Did he successfully solve any systemic problems in the CAF such as gender and ethnic inequality, deficiencies in the military justice system, longterm retention, combat effectiveness, morale, financial corruption, and non-partisan and respected military leadership. Why did he support the continued use of Mefloquin?

His one great ability in changing jobs was a smooth transition from military manager (not leader) to consummate bureaucrat. He also seemed at ease switching loyalty from the military officer corps to the public service. This is clearly demonstrated by his favouritism towards supporting his VAC staff more than serving Veterans.

If he was truly a public servant, then it would be obvious in his dedication to solving systemic problems. What is actually more obvious is his public subservience to whoever is the minister, which at times seems more like grovelling.

Loyalty to whatever the ruling party wants is the most important responsibility. Otherwise, he would have done due diligence to provide impartial advice, which could include demonstrating the superiority of the Pension Act to the PFL in terms of financial generosity to Veterans. Instead, he chose to support the less generous PFL.

In contrast, he has embraced enthusiastically his lofty status in the public service. He likes all the perks and social activities (suitable candy for an extrovert) including travelling at public expense, two offices (Ottawa and Charlottetown) and the adoration of his staff, and many Veterans, who can not see his failings (probably because of their rigid adherence to always support military hierarchy).

He showed his political allegiance by hosting a farewell party for then Minister of Veterans Affairs Erin O’Toole after his party lost in the election of 2015.

Now Walt Natynczyk can rebut all this by pointing out his long service to Canada. However, was he serving himself or Canada? Did he always act in an ethic and honourable fashion in keeping with his oaths to Canada? Or was he willing to use any option as long as “the ends justified the means?

There was a rumour that Natynczyk sought to become governor-general and replace David Johnston in 2017. Prime Minister Trudeau preferred Julie Payette as she was a woman and a francophone. She better represented the diversity that the prime minister loves to promote, so it would not be politically correct to have another male anglophone in this prestigious role.

To bad for Walt as it could have been the icing on his career cake.

https://ipolitics.ca/2019/03/03/wernick-should-have-spoken-truth-to-power/

Perry Gray is a Regular Force veteran, serving as the Chief Editor of VVi. Perry has been with VVi for 18 years.
Page top
You Can Help!

All veterans are encouraged to pass information, opinions, links to self-help sites onto VVi. VeteranVoice.info is a distribution centre and we are dependant on others to pass information. This is your site. Tell other veterans about your site.

Email: info@VeteranVoice.info

Facebook Messenger: https://www.facebook.com/VeteranVoice.info

Twitter: https://twitter.com/VetVoiceinfo

Page top

VViVeteranVoice.info (VVi) http://VeteranVoice.info
VViVVi Bulletin Board http://VeteranVoice.info/bulletinboard.htm
VViVVi Database http://www.veteranvoice.info/db/all_records.asp
VViVVi CSAT Forum http://csat.top-talk.net/
VViVVi on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/VeteranVoice.info
VViVVi on Twitter https://twitter.com/VetVoiceinfo
VViVeteran's Aide Memoire http://veteranvoice.info/archive/aide_memoire/Vet_Aide_Memoire.pdf

Equitas Society http://www.equitassociety.ca/

MARIJUANA For Trauma (MFT) https://mftgroup.ca/
National (US) Gulf War Resources Center, Inc. http://www.ngwrc.org/
PPCLI Association

Volunteer Patricia Program (VPP)

http://vpp.ppcliassoc.ca
http://seanbruyea.com
https://www.cfpsa.com/Splashpages/SoldierOn/

Veteran Guerrilla Radio https://www.facebook.com/groups/853095038155250/
http://www.veterans.gc.ca/
V.E.T.S

Veterans Emergency

Transition Services

http://www.vetscanada.org/
http://www.ombudsman-veterans.gc.ca/
http://veteransofcanada.ca/
Wounded Warriors Fund http://www.woundedwarriors.ca/
Page top



Disclaimer and Non-Endorsement for VeteranVoice.info
Supplement

Feature:   The Ministerial Revolving Door

PDF Copy...Click Here!...

CLIQUEZ ici! / CLICK Here! 

PERIODICAL - Mar 2019

Issue No: 201991

 


VeteranVoice.info

VVi is for you, all veterans, regardless of whether you belong to a veteran organization or not. VVi is a distribution centre, a conduit for making sure that the information you need as a veteran is there for you in a timely fashion. Our aim is to provide a forum for all Canadian veterans, serving members and their families to have access to information pertaining to veteran rights.

VVi is an independent site, not associated with any governmental department, agency or veteran organization. VeteranVoice.info is maintained by independent contributions.

Page top
The Ministerial Revolving Door

By Perry Grey, Chief Editor VVi

“A department that's seen seven ministers since 2010 could use some continuity” 

Prime Minister Trudeau is continuing the tradition of replacing ministers rather quickly much like his predecessor Stephen Harper. This is a comparison that the prime minister would not like. Both picked people who not only angered Veterans, but also embarrassed the government.

The first choice in 2015 was Kent Hehr, who seemed like a good choice in that he was physically disabled. This fit in nicely with the social justice warrior philosophy that the prime minister seemed to embrace. Kent seemed very sociable and liked to have “selfies” with Veterans. How much progress he made in completing his mandate letter is questionable because the most important issue, reinstatement of lifelong pensions was rarely if ever discussed.

Kent committed the greatest sin by revealing that he was a “pussy grabber” which led to his swift dismissal and exile to the back bench. He was also accused of a number of other lesser crimes such as insensitive comments about thalidomide survivors, condescending remarks to Veterans and using his position to help his father (neoptism).

The second choice was a personal friend of the prime minister, Seamus O’Reagan, who also seemed a good choice as the brother of a Veteran. He spent a lot more time discussing pension for life, particularly as there was a need to appear to be achieving the most important objectives in the prime minister’s mandate letter (both ministers were given near identical letters) before the 2019 election.

He spent a lot of time also discussing his own issues with the media. This included his “career transition”, which he found very traumatic and resulted in depression and alcoholism. Unfortunately, he sinned by comparing himself to Veterans, who had similar problems. This made the inappropriate comments of former Conservatine minister, Julian Fantino seem almost unimportant ( I am a Veteran…police officer). 

Seamus compounded his mistakes by then engaging in a war of words with Veterans, specifically Sean Bruyea, with regards to the proposed pension plan. The legal case arising from this conflict has yet to be resolved so will follow Seamus to his next job of “serving” indigenous peoples.

The recent appointment of Jody Wilson-Raybould is a very curious choice as she was the Minister of Justice, who was responsible for “fighting with Veterans in the courts” (including the use of a senior lawyer to represent Seamus against Sean Bruyea in small claims court where lawyers very rarely work). Engaging in legal actions was something that the prime minister said that he would not do during the last election. So why would he blatantly insult Veterans by appointing Jody?

“She’s smart and competent but she doesn’t exude empathy,” said one colleague. “It’s an odd pick for veterans affairs.” (National Post 14 Jan 2019)

Her fist speech as MVA suggests that the appointment was disappointing:

“she said she could think of “no world in which I would consider working for our veterans in Canada as a demotion.”

But is it not promotion/demotion based on how cabinet positions are ranked? So now Veterans are getting another “failed social experiment”, who may have already sinned grievously in the mind of the prime minister.

Ms Wilson-Raybould lasted only a few weeks with her only significant contribution being the promotion of Valentines for Veterans, an annual event aimed at thanking Veterans for their service. She will be remembered more for her quick exit and forcing another cabinet shuffle…and of course expanding the SNC-Lavalin scandal.

The newest minister, Lawrence MacAulay, is both a veteran politician and familiar with the Veterans portfolio having served as Secretary of State (Veterans) under Prime Minister Chretien in the 1990’s. Of interest, he is from PEI, which is also home to VAC. 

He does share one thing in common with his predecessor. Both Wilson-Raybould and MacAuley denied that Veterans Affairs was a demotion. In his first speech, the new minister stated:

"To have the honour to represent the people who preserve peace and democracy for us worldwide; that is a long place from a demotion."

But why even use that word?

Politicians, particularly veteran politicians such as MacAuley, know that choice of words is very important. Your listeners or readers can misinterpret your ideas and this is more likely if your words accentuate ambiguity.

If one should never shout “fire” in a crowded theatre, then politicians should not mention promotion or demotion with regards to cabinet appointments.

Right now, there are a lot of angry Veterans, who believe that the federal government does not care about them because of ministers and mistakes since the last election. The Pension for Life, and the political and legal crisis over a $165-million accounting error.

Over 272,000 veterans, most of them elderly, were affected by the indexing mistake and more than half of them — about 170,000 — have died. (CBC News 2 Mar 2019)

Minister MacAuley will have a lot to do if he wants Veterans to vote in the next election…four months or less. Unless he is moved in the next cabinet shuffle, which must now follow the resignation of Jane Philpott on 4 March 2019. 

All four ministers appeared to be good candidates only as far as the optics of appointing “politically correct” people rather than the best choice to fill a ministerial position. It seems to Canadians that having a balance of gender, ethnicity, regionalism, etc. is far more important than specific personal qualifications. So it is rather ironic when the prime minister talks about the depth of his caucus, he does not mean experience. 

This seems like the prime minister wants to hand his opponents more votes in my opinion.

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/in-the-trudeau-government-whats-a-cabinet-shuffle-for/ 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wilson-raybould-veterans-seamus-oregan-1.4978148 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/macauley-veterans-payments-1.5039856 

Perry Gray is a Regular Force veteran, serving as the Chief Editor of VVi. Perry has been with VVi for 18 years.
Page top
Who Is Behind the Curtain?

By Perry Grey, Chief Editor VVi

“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain” (The Wizard of Oz)

The recent cabinet shuffles have highlighted a rather disturbing trend in the high turnover of minister in the Veterans Affairs portfolio. Since 2010, there have been nine ministers (this includes one temporary appointment that of the Minister of National Defence Harjit Sajjan in February 2019). This garnered plenty of media coverage which included complaints by many Veterans about the turmoil resulting from so many ministers. This was particularly troubling with the start of the Pension for Life (one of the government’s most important 2015 election commitments) in April and the federal election in the fall.

While the rapid change in ministers was a concern, the government had endeavoured to ensure stability by appointing Walt Natynczyk as deputy minister in 2014. One of his first tasks was to do damage control for the Conservative government in the wake of Julian Fantino, who sustained criticism of his performance as minister from veterans, journalists and opposition politicians. 

But is Walt Natynczyk the ideal person for his position?

On paper, he certainly seems to be. He was a career army officer, who served as Chief of Defence Staff between 2008 and 2012. So he surely appears to be the embodiment of the “veterans’ veteran”.

However, veterans know well that anyone who becomes a general officer and more importantly CDS has to be politically savvy. He was appointed CDS by Prime Minister Steven Harper, who also appointed him as DM.

This is possibly the tip of an iceberg like that which sank the Titanic.

To illustrate the potential dangers, consider the role played by Michael Wernick, the Clerk of the Privy Council, and the senior federal public servant, in the ongoing SNC-Lavalin troubles. In particular are his testimony before the House Justice Committee 21 February that included remarks on the state of on-line discourse, partisanship and the prospect of political assassinations. While answering questions, he expressed opinions viewed by opposition MP’s as biased in favour of the Liberals and indicative of him being partisan in resolving SNC-Lavalin problems.

This is far from the official role of the clerk, who has a responsibility to uphold the independence of the public service, and to provide impartial advice to the government as a whole (meaning all politicians and public servants not just the prime minister and his caucus). 

The actions of Mr Wernick should be of major concern to all Canadians because public servants have to careful to avoid any partisan involvement. And this is often a major challenge. For the clerk, he is the secretary of cabinet, the head of the public service, and the deputy minister for the prime minister. This trio of responsibilities was part of a reform of the federal public service developed in the 1990’s. The clerk’s duties (a three headed monster for some critics) has been judged as unethical because it can result in promiscuous partisanship and a significant blurring of lines in the conduct of government activities.

The Gomery report of 2006 noted that there was growing evidence that the political PMO and the non-partisan and administrative PCO “seem to be merging more and more into each other,” particularly as more power has shifted to the PMO. (Note, the Gomery commission was a public inquiry into government corruption arising from yet another Quebec based scandal).

“If the Clerk of Privy Council is any indication of the quality of bureaucrats in Canada we are in more trouble than anyone realizes. No wonder issues like the Phoenix scandal occur. The man seems completely arrogant and out of touch.” (comment attached to CBC report on Wernick’s second appearance before the judiciary committee 6 March 2019)

This is not what was expected when Mr Wernick was appointed as clerk by Prime Minister Trudeau in 2016,

“This is a hugely exciting sign for the public service to make a break with a style of leadership that has led the public service away from the professionalism and non-partisanship that public servants should have,”

Canadian media has reported on the growing trend of just the opposite because of the blurring of lines between a public servants duties to serve both Canada and more specifically politicians. There have been allegations of bureaucratic partisanship, which can deeply compromise even the most ethical public servant.

Also troubling is a tendency in the public service to operate in isolation from the Canadian public. Again even ethical people can make mistakes and can also try to rationalise their actions by claiming that they were serving Canada.

The Nuremberg trials at the end of World War Two clearly showed the world that the claims of “I was just following orders” is not the perfect defence.

There is also an insidious trend in any public service known as noble cause corruption by political analysts. This is an adherence to a philosophical and ethical doctrine suggesting that people will use unethical or illegal means to attain desirable goals, a result which appears to benefit the greater good (the ends justify the means).

After all, we want to live in a society which treats everyone equally and with respect.

Sadly, society is rarely so utopian because it is hard to balance self interests and the interests of others (family, friends, etc.).

In my opinion,, the Veterans Community has been betrayed by two former senior military officers, Admiral Larry Murray and General Walter Natynczyk. 

Murray, as deputy minister, encouraged Veterans Affairs to develop the NVC, but instead of overseeing its implementation, he left the department. The NVC evolved into a Frankenstein’s monster of a very complex series of programs. Its critics, of whom there were many in the Veterans Community, had many complaints that the department refused to address. Within a few years, there were over 500 recommendations provided by advocates. To date, only a handful of recommendations have actually been addressed.

One of the most glaring omissions was a comparable financial benefit similar to the Pension Act. 

Enter Walt Natynczyk as deputy minister and he appeared willing to tackle problems much like Hercules and his mythical 12 labours (which no mortal could accomplish). One of his major accomplishments is the new “Pension for Life” (PFL).

Seriously after six years in the position, he thinks that the pension is great?

In my opinion, it is all part of Natynczyk’s (Machiavellian) strategy to limit meaningful debate about his administration. This is not pure speculation as it is based on witnessing how he manages the stakeholders. 

The stakeholder summits were supposed to be held twice per year; once in the spring, and then in the fall. Instead they have been held more erratically. The agenda is prepared by the department with no obvious involvement by the Veterans Community, and yet these events are one of the few activities where advocates are involved directly with Veterans Affairs.

This is a typical “public relations” approach throughout the public service, in which the appearance of consulting with the public is more important than actually doing what is in the best interests of Canadians. It is more important to talk at the public than listen to the public.

The bright-eyed and bushy-tailed public servant takes the view that they do not have to be told what to do as their experience and knowledge will guide them to doing what is best for the public (and then drive the Titanic onto the iceberg…). 

From his first summit, Natynczyk employed the sound military strategy of divide and conquer. The attendees were split into groups and allowed to discuss a list of department approved topics. Then one representative was asked to summarise the group discussions. There was no time allocated for question periods after lectures by the department or the discussion groups. The department never published any information concerning the summits after their conclusion.

Since there were more critics demanding a greater role, new ideas were introduced to appease the vocal minority. Six ministerial advisory groups were created as part of the commitment to improve transparency and seek consultation on issues of importance to Veterans and their families (policy, service excellence, mental health, families, care and support, and commemoration).

Natynczyk allowed selected advocates (not necessarily Veterans) to join the advisory groups. Membership of each group varied between nine and 14. There was no explanation of why the numbers are different or how members were selected, and also why some stakeholders were denied membership. Each group was allowed to meet formally under close supervision of department personnel and discuss a limited range of topics. A general summary of some meetings was published on the department’s website.

Despite the intent of improving transparency and seeking consultation, the department continued to operate with little input from the Veterans Community.

Much like Orwell’s new speak in his classic novel 1984, transparency and consultation are not defined by government as most of the population would understand the words to mean.

In terms of activity, the Policy group met four times in 2016, two times in 2017 and not once in 2018. Service Excellence met four times in 2016 and once in 2017. Mental Health had four meetings in 2016 and five in 2017 with the majority of these being teleconferences (not physical and formal meetings). Families met four times in both 2016 and 2017. Care and Support had five meetings in 2016 and two in 2017. Commemorations met three times in 2016 and twice in 2017.

You can read about the meetings and what may have been discussed on the Veterans Affairs website. I say may have been discussed because the department provided the information on each meeting and there were no actual minutes published.

According to the published terms of reference, the groups were to “meet in person two to three times per year” and “meet more frequently by teleconference.” So none of the groups have been as active as was originally intended with 2018 having little activity.

The transparency of the groups was also negated by the terms of reference, specifically as follows:
• to maintain the confidentiality of deliberations at all times;
• not to disclose privileged or protected information or information of a personal nature; and
• not to disclose the Group’s recommendations until the Minister approves the sharing of information beyond VAC; inform the co-chair(s) of any potential or perceived conflict of interest.
Therefore the members could not talk freely with their own stakeholder groups or other advocates. Thus all of the members voluntarily agreed to continue the unofficial Veterans Affairs policy of non-disclosure, which was one of the biggest problems with the new charter in 2005.

The Policy group did discuss the pension for life and stated “the lifelong pension proposed under the Mandate Letter must be more than just an apportionment or a reworking of the Disability Award into a monthly benefit”. (28 September 2017)

This is far from the Liberal election commitment to reinstate lifelong pensions. First of all to reinstate is defined as to cause something to exist again. The most obvious thing to reinstate would be the World War 2 vintage Pension Act, which still applies to many CAF Veterans and ALL RCMP Veterans. (Note the RCMP rejected the shelving of the PA). 

The PFL is nothing more than a (desperate) idea championed by Veterans Affairs during the Conservative government because of the growing anger about the eradication of the PA and the introduction of the lump sum of the New Veterans Charter (aka Veterans Wellness Act). The various Liberal ministers since 2015 have been expected to promote the new pension so that they could ensure that the election commitments were achieved.

When reviewing Natynczyk’s time as both CDS and now DM, one important questions needs to be considered. What has he achieved that benefits the people that he serves?

Did he successfully solve any systemic problems in the CAF such as gender and ethnic inequality, deficiencies in the military justice system, longterm retention, combat effectiveness, morale, financial corruption, and non-partisan and respected military leadership. Why did he support the continued use of Mefloquin?

His one great ability in changing jobs was a smooth transition from military manager (not leader) to consummate bureaucrat. He also seemed at ease switching loyalty from the military officer corps to the public service. This is clearly demonstrated by his favouritism towards supporting his VAC staff more than serving Veterans.

If he was truly a public servant, then it would be obvious in his dedication to solving systemic problems. What is actually more obvious is his public subservience to whoever is the minister, which at times seems more like grovelling.

Loyalty to whatever the ruling party wants is the most important responsibility. Otherwise, he would have done due diligence to provide impartial advice, which could include demonstrating the superiority of the Pension Act to the PFL in terms of financial generosity to Veterans. Instead, he chose to support the less generous PFL.

In contrast, he has embraced enthusiastically his lofty status in the public service. He likes all the perks and social activities (suitable candy for an extrovert) including travelling at public expense, two offices (Ottawa and Charlottetown) and the adoration of his staff, and many Veterans, who can not see his failings (probably because of their rigid adherence to always support military hierarchy).

He showed his political allegiance by hosting a farewell party for then Minister of Veterans Affairs Erin O’Toole after his party lost in the election of 2015.

Now Walt Natynczyk can rebut all this by pointing out his long service to Canada. However, was he serving himself or Canada? Did he always act in an ethic and honourable fashion in keeping with his oaths to Canada? Or was he willing to use any option as long as “the ends justified the means?

There was a rumour that Natynczyk sought to become governor-general and replace David Johnston in 2017. Prime Minister Trudeau preferred Julie Payette as she was a woman and a francophone. She better represented the diversity that the prime minister loves to promote, so it would not be politically correct to have another male anglophone in this prestigious role.

To bad for Walt as it could have been the icing on his career cake.

https://ipolitics.ca/2019/03/03/wernick-should-have-spoken-truth-to-power/ 

Perry Gray is a Regular Force veteran, serving as the Chief Editor of VVi. Perry has been with VVi for 18 years.
Page top

You  Can Help!

All veterans are encouraged to pass information, opinions, links to self-help sites onto VVi. VeteranVoice.info is a distribution centre and we are dependant on others to pass information. This is your site. Tell other veterans about your site.  

Email: info@VeteranVoice.info

Facebook Messenger: https://www.facebook.com/VeteranVoice.info  

Twitter: https://twitter.com/VetVoiceinfo  

Page top
VViVeteranVoice.info (VVi)http://VeteranVoice.info
VViVVi Bulletin Boardhttp://VeteranVoice.info/bulletinboard.htm
VViVVi Databasehttp://www.veteranvoice.info/db/all_records.asp
VViVVi CSAT Forumhttp://csat.top-talk.net/
VViVVi on Facebookhttps://www.facebook.com/VeteranVoice.info  
VViVVi on Twitterhttps://twitter.com/VetVoiceinfo  
VViVeteran's Aide Memoirehttp://veteranvoice.info/archive/aide_memoire/Vet_Aide_Memoire.pdf

Equitas Society
http://www.equitassociety.ca/

MARIJUANA For Trauma (MFT)
https://mftgroup.ca/
National (US) Gulf War Resources Center, Inc.http://www.ngwrc.org/ 

PPCLI Association 

Volunteer Patricia Program (VPP)

http://vpp.ppcliassoc.ca 
http://seanbruyea.com
https://www.cfpsa.com/Splashpages/SoldierOn/

Veteran Guerrilla Radio
https://www.facebook.com/groups/853095038155250/
http://www.veterans.gc.ca/

V.E.T.S

Veterans Emergency

Transition Services

http://www.vetscanada.org/
http://www.ombudsman-veterans.gc.ca/
http://veteransofcanada.ca/ 
Wounded Warriors Fundhttp://www.woundedwarriors.ca/

Page top

 

Disclaimer and Non-Endorsement for VeteranVoice.info

Eval SOURCE RELIABILITY 
Eval INFO CREDIBILITY6 - Not Judged
SourceVVi
COMPONENTVAC
Source URLhttp://veteranvoice.info/archive/Periodicals/Periodical_19Mar.htm
Related External Link 
Additional Link 
Periodical Issue06-03-2019
Periodical No201991
VVi ContributorCJ
ACTION GENERALPeriodical Inclusion