|
|
PERIODICAL - June 2007 |
|
Issue No: 200715 |
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. Same
Thing with Different Words?
In April, the Prime Minister announced the
implementation of the new bill of rights for veterans. I am somewhat
confused by what it means. Let me be clear I can read what it says
but what does it mean?
I hope that some of you reading this will
provide some insight to help me understand the bill of rights. So
that everyone is on the same page, below is what the government has stated
You have the right to:
You have the right to make a complaint and
have the matter looked into if you feel that any of your rights have not
been upheld.
The Veterans Bill of Rights applies to all
clients of Veterans Affairs. They include:
The Bill of Rights will strengthen the
government’s ability to respond quickly and fairly, to the concerns of
Canada’s Veterans. It is a clear and concise statement that will
allow Veterans Affairs to continue to ensure every Canadian Veteran is
treated with respect, with dignity and with fairness.
My first thought was what is so special, even
revolutionary, about this bill of rights? Surely everything in the
bill was already guaranteed to veterans in previous legislation pertaining
to veterans and to all Canadians with regards to the Official Languages
Act and the Privacy Act. Every federal department and agency is
supposed to treat Canadians with respect, dignity, fairness and courtesy
in both official languages.
In fact, Keith Hillier, of Veterans Affairs,
stated that veterans' bill of rights does not change anything in
legislation, does not change anything in policies and does not change
anything to service delivery standards. If that is so, what is the use of
a veterans' bill of rights?
The bill is supposed to be clear and concise,
but I am unclear as to who can with you for support and why would this be
necessary? Personally, I can understand through experience why it is
necessary to have a witness having been subjected to rude and discourteous
employees of Veterans Affairs. In one incident, an employee
threatened to have me arrested because my behaviour was offensive.
Good thing that I was sitting with my representative from the Bureau of
Pensions Advocates, well not really as that gentleman did nothing to
defuse the situation.
I know my right of appeal; however, the
eastern Regional Manager of BPA decided to deny me the services of his
bureau, although he would not put this in writing. So now I have
joined the ranks of the disenfranchised and must use the services of a
private law firm to address my grievances. So much for the respect,
dignity, fairness and courtesy guaranteed by the bill of rights!
Another thing that is unclear to me is the
consultation with veterans that supposedly took place. If it was
anything like the development of the new veterans charter, then this was
done in secret and with only a vague outline of the proposed bill provided
to the veterans involved as consultants. Is it possible for some of
them to identify themselves? May be not if they were required to
sign a non-disclosure agreement. Really what is it with Veterans
Affairs that everything in recent years must be shrouded in secrecy?
Is this another example of respect, dignity, fairness and courtesy?
I also wonder how involved were the
Parliamentary committees dealing with Veterans Affairs. I have
attended several of the meetings of the House of Commons Standing
Committee On Veterans Affairs and read the minutes of those that I did not
attend, and yet found no details of the bill of rights. I guess I
missed something because I would expect that the committee responsible to
examine all matters relating to the mandate, management and operation of
the Department of Veterans Affairs would have done so.
Ironically, a meeting about the bill of rights was held on 11 December
2006, the main witness, Brian Ferguson Assistant Deputy Minister, Veterans
Services, Department of Veterans Affairs, stated my mandate is not to
talk about what the content of the bill of rights. Yet this was
supposed to be the beginning the committee’s investigation of the bill
of rights. So why was the ADM not talking about the contents?
Finally, I found some mention of the bill of
rights as stated by Greg Thompson MVA during a meeting of the committee on
20 February 2007. “It includes the right, for example, to be
included in the discussions that affect their health and well-being; the
right to have family and community recognized as important to their
well-being; the right to receive information about services and programs,
programs like, for example, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board; the
right to know what redress mechanisms are available to them; the right to
have their privacy protected; the right to receive services in the
official language of their choice; and the right to receive benefits and
services according to published service standards.” Please note that the
minister also said “Those are examples of what might be in a bill
of rights for veterans”.
During the meeting of 27 March 2007, the
committee had only a draft copy of the bill, which was provided possibly
sometime in the summer of 2006 by one of the veterans’ groups involved
in the consultation process. The document was hard to read because
the word “draft” was imbedded as a watermark thus obscuring parts of
the bill. In addition to discussion on how the bill could be worded,
there was also concern about the legal status of the bill of rights and it
was recommended getting input from parliamentary counsel. What if this had
no legal basis and it was just a nice, pleasant, but otherwise wishy-washy
statement of the nice things the department should do for you? It
could be just a mission statement or statement of service principles.
The Conservative Party did not intend it to be a legal document when it
was part of the party’s 2006 election commitments. It was meant to
be a reassurance.
Parliamentary counsel provided testimony
during the meeting on 29 March 2007. It was confirmed that the
proposed veterans bill of rights could be done as legislation, as an act
of Parliament; however, there was a need to consider the details because
an act of Parliament should not be limited to words on paper. It
should also provide for a series of appropriate mechanisms to ensure its
application. If there isn't sufficient recourse available to the
veterans in the event of a failure, in their view, to respect those
rights, then the legislation might have given rise to expectations that
are not fulfilled with the result that the whole project is brought into
disrepute. There were a number of options discussed including the
role of an ombudsman to enforce the bill of rights. But when will an
ombudsman be appointed and what are the terms of reference?
So prior to the Prime Minister’s
announcement about the bill of rights the committee still had not delved
into the precise wording of the bill and whether or not it was a legal
document. So what is the bill of rights? Can I expect more
from VAC if I believe that it has violated my rights or is it just some
wishy-washy statement to make me feel good that I have some special status
as a veteran?
Of course, I have done the obvious and asked
other veterans, but they could provide no insight as they were equally
baffled by the announcement of the bill of rights. This makes me
wonder why it is that the majority of veterans learn about all the things
that the federal government does for them after everything has been
finalised?
This trend just makes me more dubious about
how well the government is willing to treat Canadian veterans. And
for good reasons given some of the past revelations, such as:
The 166,000 war service veterans and about
258,000 dependants who do not receive VIP services;
While the MVA claims that there has been “a
lot of progress on the Agent Orange file”, those exposed are still
waiting for a resolution after 40 years;
VAC claims to have an approval rating of more
than 86%, but is rather vague about how the number was calculated.
This is a pretty astounding number given that no other government
department can boast of anything close to that and in light of the number
of appeals and complaints made by veterans (including those to their MPs);
and
The exclusion of most veterans from the
consultation process. We have to be satisfied with the involvement
of the Royal Canadian Legion and other groups that represent less than 25%
of all veterans. The Legion’s membership now has a vast majority
who have never worn a military or RCMP uniform and that includes the
national president.
So what am I missing?
VVi Chief Editor
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 .
Veterans of Canada.ca
http://www.veteransofcanada.ca
Military Veterans Research-Study (Medical Pensions) https://veteranvoice.info/vetsurvey.htm
https://veteranvoice.info/VeteranWatch/index.htm
Reading Your Med File - https://veteranvoice.info/MyMedFile.htm
Canadian Army Veteran Motorcycle Units
Chosen Solder Program |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To subscribe to VeteranVoice.info click here! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Disclaimer and Non-Endorsement for VeteranVoice.info: Please
click here!. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Print
Version
