Press Conference on CF Veterans Charter (Bill C-45) May 11, 2005
In their haste to be seen as pro-Veteran in this, the year of the Veteran, all political parties are falling over themselves to pass C-45 at all stages. What strikes many veterans as odd, and even unbelievable it that in the rush to honour veterans, our political parties have forgotten that the core issue for which veteran in all wars fought was for responsible democracy. In our system, responsible democracy requires consideration of government Bills by committees, input by witnesses and stakeholders and as well the oft-mentions sober second thought of the Senate. We all know that the government wants to be seen as honouring veterans but that doesn't necessarily mean that their veteran's charter is free of errors. In fact, given that the veteran's contribution to society is defined by many as timeless, one must ask that after Veterans Affairs dragging their heels for more than15 years, why is there such a rush to force something through in only two weeks? We believe disabled veterans and the CF would rather have it right, than have a flawed and unjust charter right now! With the understanding that a new Veterans’ Charter truly serves those that society says it values so highly, disabled veterans deserve a well thought-out program. For this reason, consultation is truly important. In the Minister’s press release she states “there is strong consensus among political parties and veterans' organizations for progressive legislation to give practical meaning to long overdue service and program reforms for those who served in Canada's Armed Forces.” We couldn’t agree more. There is indeed a strong consensus on the need to act. Nonetheless, as we understand, a select group of six veterans' organizations were provided with advanced drafts of the CHARTER on a confidential basis and forbidden from sharing them with anyone, including their membership. Thus, the so-called consensus of veterans’ organizations could be based on the views of as few as SIX PEOPLE who actually saw the DRAFT of the CHARTER. Moreover, Veterans’ organizations and opposition political parties based their support on a 4-page press release. However C-45 is not a press release; it is a 50-page piece of legislation formally titled the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act. There is broad support for the principle of a Veterans’ CHARTER, however most MPs, Senators and their staff have not had time to READ Bill C-45. Therefore to say that “there is strong consensus among political parties and veterans' organizations” for Bill C-45 would be more than a slight exaggeration. The truth is that there has been remarkably little consultation on the charter/ and the government appears to be more interested in public perceptions than in lasting results. Of concern is the nature of those consultations that were conducted. Many of these were with groups that represent principally veterans of WWII. While it is fitting and proper to include them, as this is the 60th anniversary of their greatest victories, the needs of a WWII veteran and a soldier who served in more recent conflicts can be very different. Indeed, the Veteran’s charter will not apply to WWII veterans; they are covered by numerous pieces of legislation, such as the War Veterans Allowance Act, the Veteran’s Land Act and the Pernsioner’s Training Regulations. Since a new CF Charter applies to future veterans, it would have made sense to focus on consultation with the disabled veterans and serving members of the most recent conflicts such as Yugoslavia, Rwanda and the Gulf War in order to meet the emerging needs of veterans serving in TODAY’s not YESTERDAY’s military. Unbelievably, this did not happen. That’s right, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, in designing her Veteran’s charter, did NOT engage in MEANINGFUL CONSULTATION AND FEEDBACK with veterans or serving members of RECENT CONFLICTS. This is a FATAL FLAW in the design of her charter. However, perhaps the biggest flaw is that the actual legislation, Bill C-45 is very different in spirit from the publicity released to parliament and the public. Consider the supportive language of the publicity in the Charter: “If CF members are injured or become ill in service to Canada, they deserve the best health care possible.” AND “Canadians expect that CF veterans and their families will be appropriately compensated for the economic and non-economic impacts of a disability arising out of their service.” These are examples of comforting, reassuring language, in fact, the kind of language upon which the Minister’s so called “strong consensus among political parties and veterans' organizations” is based. However, the language of Bill C-45 is not quite as comforting; you might consider it as the fine print on an insurance contract. And like fine print, it is full of limitations and restrictions. As the saying goes, “the devil is in the details” So clause 9 (2) lets the Minister refuse to consider an application that is made more than 120 days after the veteran’s release date. For many veterans this could completely block coverage. For operational stress injuries, (PTSD, depression) symptoms often do not show up until 5 and even 10 years later and it takes 6 months or more to get a firm diagnosis. A 120-day limit on filing a claim puts the disabled veteran in a difficult bind. First he has to justify an exception to the 120 day filing limit, and then he has to prove that his injury is related to his service. Many disabled veterans will give up. / Instead of making things easier, Bill C-45 makes things harder. Worthy of careful scrutiny is that access to all benefits including those for the family are tied to following a VAC prescribed vocational rehab programs even though the veteran could be so disabled as to be otherwise unemployable. A veteran must be assessed as “totally and permanently disabled” to opt out of the vocational rehab. When we presented this portion of the legislation to numerous medical doctors and medical practitioners, their unanimous response was that even unemployable disabled persons would be unlikely to receive such a restrictive prognosis. Thus, disabled and otherwise unemployable veterans will likely be forced to work or risk loosing even the most basic of the income supplements. We believe many Canadians will come to label the new legislation as “CF Workfare” (Pause) Bill C-45 creates different and distinct classes of veterans; one for those who served in the Canadian Military on or before April 1, 1947, a second for those who served in the Korean War, a third for those who served from WWII to present and a fourth for those who are covered by new legislation. Canadians are always told that Veterans fought for democracy and there can be nothing more fundamental to democracy than equality. Creating multiple classes of people who were proud to serve in the Canadian Forces is not the type of equality that veterans and Canadians treasure and have died defending. The legislation calls for a one-time lump sum payment of up to $250,000. Most disabled veterans will likely receive only a fraction of this amount. Nevertheless, one must question the wisdom of giving lump sum payments to sufferers of Operational Stress Injuries while many are in the depths of depression and crisis. Presently, veterans enjoy a lifelong yet modest disability pension. The lump sum payment is equivalent to no more than 7 to 10 years of disability pension. Most disabled veterans live for twenty, thirty or even forty years after release. Such appropriate compensation appears to dodge responsibility for caring for the disabled veteran rather than accepting responsibility for what are life-long disabilities. (PAUSE) Finally, I want to comment on what is not in the Charter and Not in Bill C-45. For years now, many veterans, have been calling for dedicated hospital beds for the incapacitated veteran. Various groups and parties are calling for the creation of an Ombudsman for disabled Veterans, similar to what CF serving members enjoy. The outgoing Ombudsman for the Department of National Defence agrees with this philosophy, arguing that it is curious that healthy employable soldiers have an Ombudsman, while injured soldiers and retired soldiers have no similar service. Curiously, a confidential Senate analysis, written by one of the very few Canadians who actually read Bill C-45, states, “While this legislation will provide veterans with much-needed job assistance, it does not provide them with an ombudsman.” One often forgotten factor in all of this political wrestling is the Veterans Affairs employee who is already at the breaking point managing a number of different programs and three different classes of veterans. One must wonder about their ability to deliver quality and timely service with the addition of a new class of veterans, six more programs and legislation which allows the department to intrude upon the veteran and his or her family in the most private of matters at all stages of rehabilitation, medical treatment, job placement and financial security. How is this treating the disabled veteran with dignity and independence? 2005 is the year of the Veteran and we have correctly spent the last week remembering the sacrifice and the victories of WW II veterans; / for us and for all Canadians they are heroes. I would also like to show Canada what a modern combat hero looks like. Behind me stand veterans from important modern conflicts; Rwanda, Yugoslavia and Gulf War. These veterans and their families ARE heroes for more than their service and sacrifice. Our mere action of defending the interests of modern veterans in the past has resulted in threatening letters and phone-calls from the Department of Veterans Affairs. This compounds a general unwillingness of veterans to speak openly not only of their own problems with Veterans Affairs but often prevents whistleblowing on systemic problems within this complex and difficult to reach department. The bullying atmosphere has silenced many if not the majority of disabled veterans. If fact, we understand that the entire publicity campaign around the forcing through of the Veterans Charter has seen bullying at all levels. Members of Veterans’ organisations and Government who never read the legislation bullied the opposition with threats of turning veterans against anyone who opposes the bill. We thought we left bullying behind in the school playgrounds of the past. We thought we had the right to free speech in Canada. That is why we were willing to sacrifice our lives. In this the year of the Veteran, if Canadians are truly interested in promoting veterans welfare, we must look beyond the publicity around the Veterans Charter. We have to actually read the underlying legislation while demanding the kind of changes that will recognize the dignity of all of Canada’s veterans regardless of when they served or whether or not they choose to belong to a veterans’ organisation.
OnLine Database